Church of Christ Universities
Two inspirations for this post:
1. In my last post ("Truth Sets Free"), I suggested that everyone, especially college students, should consider looking up a gay-friendly church in their neighborhood, whether it be Abilene, Arkansas, Malibu, or Tennessee (there are C of C schools elsewhere, I know). A warning was required, though (don't get caught!).
2. In another post ("Should I Stay or Should I Go?"), I suggested that the C of C university I attended was nothing more than a church camp for 18 to 23 year-olds.
I spent a significant part of my time in college (a) trying to avoid getting kicked for being a sexual deviant and (b) wishing I had chosen a school that didn't require attendance of "Bible" classes on such topics as "how to have a good Christian family" (aside: the "Biblical" answer apparently involves something like: don't have sex until marriage, keep your sex life interesting, don't look at porn, have the wife stay at home with the kids, and ladies, don't wear tight clothing. I'm serious. The last one was said in class. It's YOUR fault if men lust after you. uh huh.).
Complaining about brotherhood universities is a bit too easy, though. The more difficult question to answer is: what should our universities look like? It's not enough to say that LGBT students should be made to feel welcome. It's not enough to say that serious academics should be praised instead of faux-intellectual fluff. It's not enough to say that Christian universities shouldn't further our denomination's deeply imbedded misogyny. We have to articulate a vision of what the C of C university should be.
Can Harding, ACU, Lipscomb, Rochester, and all the other C of C schools be both serious univeristies and Church of Christ universities, or must they choose one or the other? Must we emphasize either "Christian" or "university," or can we choose both?
I'm not looking for a middle ground. I don't want something that is a little bit Christian and sort of a university. Did I eat too many paint chips as a child? It seems to me that serious academic inquiry, which often challenges the status quo, has little or no place in a university which seeks to preserve the status quo.
I have thought long and hard about this, and no answers seem to come to mind. Should we be satisfied that our universities hire a token Democrat polisci professor and maybe the occasional non-traditional Bible professor? Should we be asking for more? What is the goal?
Thoughts, anyone? Bueller?
1. In my last post ("Truth Sets Free"), I suggested that everyone, especially college students, should consider looking up a gay-friendly church in their neighborhood, whether it be Abilene, Arkansas, Malibu, or Tennessee (there are C of C schools elsewhere, I know). A warning was required, though (don't get caught!).
2. In another post ("Should I Stay or Should I Go?"), I suggested that the C of C university I attended was nothing more than a church camp for 18 to 23 year-olds.
I spent a significant part of my time in college (a) trying to avoid getting kicked for being a sexual deviant and (b) wishing I had chosen a school that didn't require attendance of "Bible" classes on such topics as "how to have a good Christian family" (aside: the "Biblical" answer apparently involves something like: don't have sex until marriage, keep your sex life interesting, don't look at porn, have the wife stay at home with the kids, and ladies, don't wear tight clothing. I'm serious. The last one was said in class. It's YOUR fault if men lust after you. uh huh.).
Complaining about brotherhood universities is a bit too easy, though. The more difficult question to answer is: what should our universities look like? It's not enough to say that LGBT students should be made to feel welcome. It's not enough to say that serious academics should be praised instead of faux-intellectual fluff. It's not enough to say that Christian universities shouldn't further our denomination's deeply imbedded misogyny. We have to articulate a vision of what the C of C university should be.
Can Harding, ACU, Lipscomb, Rochester, and all the other C of C schools be both serious univeristies and Church of Christ universities, or must they choose one or the other? Must we emphasize either "Christian" or "university," or can we choose both?
I'm not looking for a middle ground. I don't want something that is a little bit Christian and sort of a university. Did I eat too many paint chips as a child? It seems to me that serious academic inquiry, which often challenges the status quo, has little or no place in a university which seeks to preserve the status quo.
I have thought long and hard about this, and no answers seem to come to mind. Should we be satisfied that our universities hire a token Democrat polisci professor and maybe the occasional non-traditional Bible professor? Should we be asking for more? What is the goal?
Thoughts, anyone? Bueller?
posted by GR at 8/10/2005 05:47:00 AM
17 Comments:
I should add that I don't think I've said anything original here. I'm just hoping some of you may be a little more hopeful than I am.
GR, could you email me @
cchristian@umpublishing.org so i can email you an answer to your question on my post. i did that for krister, so i was going to do that for you if thats cool. if not, then i will still post something. just trying to make it easier for you and us to have conversation. tahnks
Clark,
Done. Thanks.
I tried to start a similar conversation a few months back, with largely unsatisfactory results.
You can read the discussions here and here.
GR,
Nicely raised topic. I think about this constantly, and it's no fun. My particular experience is with Harding. So, my particular points will be, indeed, pointed.
First, I don't think it's impossible for Christianity and education to live under one roof (or on one beautifully manicured front lawn, for that matter). A Christian school that is run with Christian values would actually be the ideal place for the open discussion of any and all ideas. If we could allow love and acceptance to put the fun in fundamentalism, then a Christian university would be the perfect environment for discussing and fleshing out the most inflammatory of social, political, and theological issues. Because Christianity doesn't exist on any one side of any issue, but, rather, it works itself out in between. So, if the Christianity is true, no one would need to feel threatened by an opposing point. You could be out without challenging your professor's sexuality, I could vote for Gore without being branded a baby killer, and the guy down the hall could go to the most conservative church in town without being considered narrow-minded.
But when you trade that version of Christianity for one that is buttressed by doctrine, you lose the Christian and the university, and Harding becomes a cold, hard business, regulating everything that can be regulated and building three new dorms a year to demonstrate its 'right'ness (because people who love God are blessed, which means they have a lot of money).
My vision of a Christian university is one where the polisci department actively seeks as many political points of view as is possible (maybe even a pinko commy), where the bible department allows its professors to say what they believe and challenge the positions of their students in order to engender deeper faith and more substantiated opinions, where the music department can teach Wagner without skirting the issue of his sexuality, and where the word 'postmodern' can be muttered without the connotation of being synonymous with 'ridiculous.'
See, this is a university where a faith in God overwhelms the insecurities that currently plague our Christian schools. But, the question is, how? As long as money runs Harding instead of love, then a teen with an alcohol problem will be a threat, not an opportunity to help. A pregnant girl will be a whore, not a sister who needs support more than she ever has before. And the question seems to come back around to the old stay or go question of the CoC. Do I get upset and disassociate myself from a school that I think is overwhelmingly doing more damage than good for its students? Or, do I write letters, send money, and try to have a voice that points toward my vision? (and is that selfish?) Can I teach there? Should I?
I always end up with more questions than answers...
I tend to think that in "today's environment" an ideal school that is both Christian and a University cannot exist.
Call me a pessimist.
I think that in the end, it is necessary for people in that stage of life to be confronted by as many people and ways of life that are different than them as possible. In the end, a Christian University still, by its name, rules out "non-Christians," doesn't it? Don't we have something to learn from Buddhists, Hindus, New Agers?
Also, the pull of administrators to greed and business prevents many from effectively producing Christian Universities that can be viewed as non-hypocritical in nature. (i.e. Yes, we send thousands of students on missionary campaigns every year, but what about the thousands of dollars in wasted meal-plans?)
Don't even get me started on Doctrine. Teaching people to constantly feel guilty no matter how hard they "try to be good." (read: personal baggage.)
There is also something to be said for having to defend your reasons for being a Christian during this searching-time-of-life. This does not happen in any real way at any Christian University that I have visited.
Yes, I had a fairly good experience at my Christian University. I, now, though see that it was nothing like the real world. Nothing like being a real Christian in the real world. There was no real "preparation" to be a living, breathing, thinking, analytical Christian living outside of the Holy Land (the Bible Belt).
So, I am left to figure out how to do all that and be all that now.
(by my own admission, I also spent the better part of high school at a christian school and this is where most of the baggage comes from.)
This is an interesting topic.
I share a lot of your feelings and questions about Harding, J. Burton.
Apparently, Baylor University (a Baptist school) has been struggling with this issue a lot lately. Christianity Today has had a lot of coverage of the conflict that Baylor is going through about what it means to be a "Christian University." You might want to see especially this article.
Christian elementary and high schools are the best, aren't they? Get the guilt in as early as possible, that's what I always say. Oh dear.
I think J. Burton is onto something in linking this with the 'stay or go' discussion. All of the issues I have with Harding, ACU, etc, line up very well with the issues I have with the C of C generally. In both church and university, money runs the show. In both, it is usually preferable to sweep a problem under the rug or to push it out the door than to deal with it openly. In both, true intellect is often dismssed...we'd rather have the guy who can give a good chapel talk (or sermon, as the case may be). We prefer a Max Lucado to a Karl Barth.
When I think about my friends from college, I am often amazed at the amount of raw brain power that was present. Sometimes, our minds were challenged in history, english, biology, math, psych, or other classes. But when you walk into a Bible class, you are supposed to turn that brain off. Don't ask too many questions (or ask them...just don't expect answers, or the prof may be reprimanded), don't think critically, don't challenge the professor.
Some incredibly bright people attend Churches of Christ. And some of those people are in grad school right now...where shall they teach? At Princeton or at Pepperdine? UT (whichever one you prefer) or ACU? Which university will want them to come and think hard, publish often, and push the limits of their field?
Intellect isn't everything. Especially in our churches, there are more important things to think about. But a UNIVERSITY should be concerned at least as much about the intellectual well-being of its students as it is about how many people came forward to be baptized at last time Jimmy Allen spoke in Chapel.
J. Burton is also right in observing that the options basically boil down to (1) walk away or (2) give a lot of money. I wonder how our generation will do...will we donate blindly, or will we immediately attach strings to our money? Who will be attaching strings, and which ones will we attach?
So many of the people that I want to donate money are going into academia or the ministry (not exactly cash cows), or are so disgusted by their college experience that they would rather donate to their Med School or B-School than to a C of C university. Who will the wealthy donors be in 30 years? Will they insist on female Bible faculty? Greater minority representation? More faculty independence? Or, will the donors be those who had a great time in college and think that creating a safe Christian environment is paramount? We'll see...
(I guess I should add here that I don't really know what the policies are re: donations. Can you even attach strings to your money? Or do you have to donate to a general fund? Can change only be brought by those on the board, or in the 'golden circle,' or whatever? I should do some research...)
Brian,
I've been following Baylor's situation with interest. I'm very curious to see what happens there.
Lots of people are watching the Baylor "experiment." Baylor's relationship with the SBC is fairly similar to Pepperdine's relationship with the COC's (a history of mistrust, etc). If the rumors can be trusted, two Pepperdine faculty/administrators (both Baptists) are current finalists for the Baylor presidency.
Sorry...I didn't mean to cut that comment short (darn Blogger!). I completely agree with the tone of this conversation; though it certainly makes for complicated and occasionally uncomfortable social situations, Pepperdine has become quite experienced with denying tenure to COC members who don't have a track record of research/publications. University policy speaking, that's a good thing (too bad it's not true at some places I know). Personally speaking, it's a little humbling and scary.
I also like what Kathy brought up. I (embarrassingly) hadn't really thought about the representation of other religions, but it seems necessary. If we hope to co-exist in a world full of Hindus, Muslims, Jews, and even Methodists, then they should be represented.
But that's a whole new problem. After all, how many people can we have on faculty? Is it enough to have scholars who can fairly represent a Muslim worldview (you know, something a little more nuanced that 'radical ideology of hate')? Probably not entirely. As long as Muslim is a label you can apply to a group of people with whom you've never come into contact, it's just an idea. Like gayness.
So suddenly our ideal Christian university has become unwielably large and diverse. Which isn't bad, but perhaps not practical. (And this doesn't even address the problem of recruitment--does the guy who calls all of the Southeast US high schoolers also call all of the Middle East high schoolers?)
Anyway, if Christianity is open and about experience, then we have to decide what to do about bringing a real life experience to Searcy or Abilene or Henderson or, perhaps most removed from anything even resembling reality, Malibu (sorry librarian, but I'm sure my oblique insult will wash right off in the ocean this evening). So how do we get an experience that big? Does anyone besides Kathy think we should?
As for money, I don't know if strings are attached, or if you're supposed to fall in line ahead of time. My guess is, the more money you give over a lifetime, the more clout you have. Which makes those first hundreds of thousands of dollars more difficult to part with.
But what I'm wondering about is, if a person does have a lot of money to give, is donation the best way to change a university? My gut reaction is that it's not. I feel that money controls HU (and probably other Christian universities) now, and that leads to poor decisions. The same way I don't want my life governed by a rich alum, it doesn't seem moral to use my money to govern someone else's. It seems that the best way to affect change is to speak up, whenever and wherever you can (I've heard blogs are a great place to speak your mind).
If we think in terms of politics...the Republicans would be short-sighted to actually nuke the filibuster now. Why? Because if the filibuster is the tool of the minority, and history shows us that no one party stays in power for long, then they would ultimately be nuking their own filibuster down the road. And Christians who use politics to legislate their own moral code are forgetting that they may not always have the majority, and failing to consider what it would be like if some other group legislated morals at Christians.
In the same way, just as quickly as we could become the most influential voice at Harding via our money, we could lose that voice, and then where did we get?
I think the way to do it is through the strength of what we have to say and through the vividness of our vision.
Is it worth the work?
Sorry Brian, but I haven't made it over to the link you provided, but I will soon.
J. Burton,
Did Jen and I meet you at Princeon CofC once a year or so ago? Anyway, if so, we need to get together sometime! We had to attend elsewhere. And now I'm a heathen Episcopalian. But nonetheless, I'd love to teach at a CofC school if I could keep my denominational affiliation and still move towards ordination. I know I'm dreaming now. But, yes, there are others out here that want to see diversity larger than just women and racial miniorities in CofC schools, as important as those are. I really don't think religious diversity would be that threatening. I currently attend a Methodist school that does a pretty good job of maintaining its identity (at least in my opinion), but has many religions represented even in its seminary. Perhaps it wouldn't be so unwieldy if you're talking across departments in the entire University. You don't have to have a Muslim or Buddhist in every department. But maybe a Buddhist in the math department. And a Muslim in the religion department.... And an Episcopalian as president. Just kidding about the last example.
Brent, you've nailed it - I think the first thing we'll (and I'm not sure who the "we" is) need to do is convince certain groups (ie, COC university board members and COC mainstreamers) that merely having faculty members from other denominations does NOT mean such a university isn't affilated with its founding denomination. Notre Dame doesn't require that all of its faculty be Catholic - heck, the assistant dean of their College of Arts and Letters is a Church of Christ minister! - but does anyone doubt that Notre Dame is Catholic? Would anyone doubt that Baylor is Baptist? That BYU is Mormon? None of these schools have faith/denominational requirements for their faculty. Seems to me that in all but the most conservative branches of the COC tribe we've stopped thinking the terms "Christian" and "Church of Christ member" are exclusively correlated; too bad our colleges and universities are among the last ones making this quiet, implicit assertion.
But we know (one of the reasons) why: they're all competing for the same student/donor pool, and, for example, when ACU and/or RC loosens their denominational requirements, how fast do you think it will take certain admissions office staff to drive that wedge in recruiting efforts?
ps. J. Burton - there's truth in most humor, especially pokes at Malibu. :)
ML -- I think your two comments go hand in hand. Universities that will deny tenure to those profs who haven't earned it (good for Pepperdine!) are setting a precedent that academics are paramount in a university, Christian or not. In that environment, it becomes very difficult to refuse hiring someone from another denomination who is eminently qualified.
You can't very easily deny tenure to a CoC member because she didn't publish enough and then refuse to hire someone with a large and respected paper trail simply because he attends an Episcopal Church.
Oh, and Malibu Librarian: Who are "we"?
"We" are the world, we are the children, we are the ones who make it right...come on, you know the song.
gay restorationist, can you please email me at absolut_ness1@yahoo.com with your email address? i would really love to talk with you.
Post a Comment
<< Home