The Fearless Christian University: An Elevator Pitch
Idealistic But Not Impossible
Over the two years I’ve been writing this SubStack, I have often shared themes I was was working through for my Fearless Christian University book, coming out in February from Eerdmans. I submitted the manuscript in January, reviewed copyedits the end of May, and cleaned up page proofs late last month. Indexing and creation of the marketing plan are currently underway. I’ve seen the great cover art but I can’t share it until next month.
I realized today that I’ve never written about the central ideas of the book, what would be my elevator pitch.1 Recent events — both positive and negative — call for me to rectify that.
Yesterday, Alan Noble, English Professor at Oklahoma Baptist, wrote a piece on his SubStack called “The Future(s) of Christian Higher Education”. He begins by correctly noting the challenges confronting Christian universities: the demographic cliff, tuition costs and debt loads, the rise of the nones, and institutional finances in general. He lists ten excellent suggestions on how to shore up Christian Higher Education, ranging from consolidation of institutions to major philanthropic gifts, lectures for the church, and encouraging four-year students as opposed to the get-done quick motif we are currently seeing.
He suggests two strategies Christian universities could pursue. The first he calls “best practices”. He has it in air quotes and I agree. This is a shorthand for a data driven efficiency model that attempts to position a school in the emerging student market, eliminating programs/majors/faculty as necessary. The ethos seems to be to give the market what it wants in as streamlined a way as possible (maybe with chapel and required Bible thrown in).
The second track is for Christian universities to commit to “shoring up the ruins of a decaying civilization”. Not unlike monasteries, universities heading down this road would give students the necessary background in history, philosophy, and theology to engage the modern world.
Much like ancient monasteries which preserved and passed down great works of theology, philosophy, and literature, modern Christian universities ought to be places that preserve the good, the true, and the beautiful. Not just preserve, but create. Christian universities should be fertile beds of creativity, where artists and thinkers are creating original works of art, architecture, literature, philosophy, medical discoveries, etc. We need people doing original works of theology and poetry. I imagine this as a space where phones are rarely seen and contemplation is encouraged.
Alan argues that most Christian universities he knows fall between these two extremes. He offers that the ideal balance would look like this:
I think the ideal way forward is to take the best of the Best Practices model (diversifying texts, efficiency [on a human scale], in-demand majors, etc) and use it for the mission of shoring up the ruins.
When Alan posted this excellent piece of Facebook yesterday, I commented that there was a third way between these two positions and that I’d be interested in exploring further.
The Elevator Pitch:
The Fearless Christian University occupies a unique space in the American higher education landscape. These universities are committed to the professional, personal, character, and spiritual health of all members of the Christian community. They are universities because they are committed to being an academic community where questions are encouraged, people are valued, and diversity of thought is the raw material through which Truth is pursued. They are student focused and expect transformation of character that will last decades beyond the college years. They are Christian because practicing the living out of shared Christian commitments is key for all members of the community, even for students who don’t come from religious backgrounds.
Being a university is the central task, with all that entails. The Christian descriptor is both a statement of the community commitments and heritage as well as the central motif for student engagement. The Christian university is not the church and so is free to engage the central questions confronting students without a focus on the various gatekeepers interested in fighting culture wars. The Fearless Christian University’s shared community commitments allow it to celebrate diversity of thought in ways that provide solutions to those seemingly intractable culture wars, benefitting the church and society at large.2
I’ve been closely following the recent news out of Cornerstone University. Thanks to John Fea’s updates in his Current publication and Kathryn Post’s stories in Religion News and some other sources, a clearer picture of what happened there takes shape.
In short, Cornerstone eliminated some key liberal arts and humanities programs, or at least consolidated them into other areas. They released a number of faculty who had formerly been tenured (the handbook recently changed). They told students who complained that nothing had really changed and that the university needed to restructure to pursue new market areas that could build enrollment. There is reporting that trying to purge faculty members who were too liberal or who disagreed with the administration played into the decisions. This was on the heels of the new president (appointed in May 2021) decrying all diversity programs and seeing as his role to fix Cornerstone from its liberal ways.3
When a friend shared a Cornerstone update on Facebook, I shared that what was happening there seemed to be the mirror image of a Fearless Christian University. He asked me which word was the problem and I said “all of them”.
Christian universities operate from fear when they attempt to move sharply to a more conservative position in the culture wars. If the institution is positioning itself alongside the hot button labels like DEI or CRT or SOGI, its focus is on boundary maintenance of the outside environment and not on its education processes.
When a Christian university adopts a “things are tough all over” and “the numbers are what they are” stance on its offering, it not only has not provided students with a transformative education, but it has underscored the transactional approach through its own actions. It is a focus on ‘what’s popular” that could strengthen the revenue stream. It operates like a business more than a university.
An institution that tells students “that’s tough” when their program and beloved faculty will be going away isn’t being Christian. Neither is firing faculty members who won’t toe the party line.
It doesn’t have to be this way. Schools like Cornerstone have made intentional choices. Other options exist. As I write at the end of my book, all it takes if for two or three institutions to step out on faith and try a new way of doing Christian Higher Education. Come Spring, I’ll be doing all I can to encourage Christian universities to find a better way.
Knowing how I like to talk, the elevator ride needs to be at least four floors!
There’s a lot more in the book about what would be required to pursue these goals
The president lost a no-confidence vote the day before his official inauguration ceremony. He didn’t care and the board backed him up.
When Christian professors left secular universities to join Christian institutes almost 100 years ago, they also took out of the secular universities their reasoned worldview (salt and light). The longer there was no new influx of Christian thinkers, the more universities began to cast off all manner of restraint. Due to the exorbitantly high cost of a private education, and the governmental restraints of a publicly funded education, having a multitude of private Christian universities may never survive over the long haul. As long as Christians define the battle lines as where someone stands on creation, evolution, the flood, personal identity, or any other biblical proclamation, having fear manipulating decisions will be real. There are no easy answers ahead for the education of the church in a post-post-post-modern culture.