Why Outdated Frameworks Can’t Advance Christian Higher Education
Leaders in Christian higher education must constantly wrestle with one fundamental question: How can we position faith-based institutions to flourish without losing their souls? While this perennial dilemma has taken various forms throughout American history, its complexity depends upon the degree of discontinuity between Christian orthodoxy and the values of society at large. In times of general alignment, this negotiation is fairly straightforward; in times of opposition, the challenge intensifies.
What, then, are we to make of our present moment? How and to what extent should Christian colleges relate to the wider culture in which they are situated? Conventional wisdom among many leaders within Christian higher education points to a constellation of cultural engagement tactics.
Seek middle ground. Promote pluralism. Exude civility and hospitality.
Articles appearing in the latest issue of Advance, the semiannual magazine published by the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities (CCCU) and promoted as “the leading voice of Christian higher education,” illustrate how these tactics are typically justified. In “Stewarding Our Call to the ‘Middle Space’,” Jonathan Schimpf interviews Shirley Mullen, President Emerita of Houghton University and current member of the CCCU’s Board of Directors. Mullen describes the thesis of her new book, Claiming the Courageous Middle: Daring to Live and Work Together for a More Hopeful Future, which argues that Christians have a “particular calling” to function as “agents of active hospitality in a middle space—hosting conversations of ‘translation’ and ‘bridgebuilding’ that allow those on either pole to see each other as fellow human beings and not enemies or abstractions.” Mullen understands this calling as not limited to individuals; it also extends to institutions like Christian colleges and universities: “As believers who are entrusted with the tools of higher education, we also bridge aspects of the current polarization within our culture.”
While Mullen advocates for dialogue as a tool for navigating differences within society, CCCU Chief Communications Officer Amanda Staggenborg argues that difference is itself a social good. In “Meeting the Need for Faith in Challenging Political Times,” Staggenborg acknowledges our highly politicized environment and encourages readers to “lean into challenging conversations with faith and purposeful unity.” And why should the reader take such a personal risk? Because, according to Staggenborg, “inspiring and engaging in pluralism is the goal of a civilized society, both in and outside of higher education.” After reassuring the reader that “what we are experiencing in this modern political and cultural climate is not unique to history,” Staggenborg concludes by asserting that difference could actually be a source of faith: “Christians have found faith, not only in spiritual guidance, but in humanity. The core of a democratic society is the celebration of valuable differences of opinion.”
An essay by Staggenborg’s CCCU colleague, Vice President for Research & Scholarship Stanley Rosenberg, further surveys the current cultural landscape. In “Academic Criticism, Civility, Christian Higher Education and the Common Good,” Rosenberg traces the contentious contours of a public square marked by “incendiary comments, inattentive listening, ego-driven and hostile criticism, and polarized political positions” and lays partial blame for the current state of affairs at the feet of “incivility found in the modern American university.” How should Christian higher education respond? By countering the “damaging phenomenon” of incivility through an embrace of the Chrisitan scholarly vocation, which Rosenberg describes as “a particular form of caring, of expressing love, for our neighbour.” According to Rosenberg, the cardinal virtue of this scholarly vocation is hospitality: “Entrusted with the tools and content of knowledge, we are called to welcome others into the community of knowledge. This extends the grace of participation, profoundly reflects the vision of integration, and expresses a vision for the love of neighbour.”
The common thread running through each of these essays is a confidence in Christian higher education’s ability to maintain its mission and position within the wider academy by adopting a cultural engagement strategy. On the surface, the espoused tactics of bridgebuilding, promoting pluralism, and exhibiting civility and hospitality appear unassailable. Upon closer examination, however, a necessary precondition for the strategy’s efficacy comes into focus: an academic milieu characterized by mutual respect, populated with good faith actors, and committed to institutional diversity. Does a sober assessment of American higher education confirm such a climate, or have national leaders misread the current state of play?
To fully appreciate the dynamics of our present moment, we must first look to the past, for where we are today is far from where we started. The history of American higher education is largely a story of departure from founding commitments. As I’ve detailed elsewhere, the earliest American colleges were thoroughly Christian in nature and built upon a medieval model rooted in the Christian worldview. Over time, however, the American system secularized, beginning with the period following the Civil War. Although Christianity’s influence declined within much of American higher education over the following century, the system as a whole still sought to construct a unified understanding of the world under the banner of modernism, a scholarly project presupposing objective reality. This common intellectual framework fostered a forum where Christian colleges and universities could make the case for their particular truth claims.
The modern order would eventually give way to the postmodern turn, a cultural and philosophical movement that profoundly altered the postsecondary landscape. Instead of viewing language as a stable and unbiased medium of exchange for all individuals, regardless of personal background, postmodernists argued that meaning is inherently tied to one’s particular sociocultural context, and these contexts are inescapably shaped by power relations marked by privilege and marginalization. On the one hand, this reframing of reality resulted in the promotion of diverse perspectives within the academy, a move that appeared to be additive. This was the promise of postmodernism: intellectual discourse could be enlarged without diminishing existing perspectives. On the other hand, the ascendant critical theories that animated postmodernism sowed seeds of discontentment within the academy, which would flower into vines of ideological constriction. This has been the reality of postmodernism in practice: intellectual discourse must be policed to ensure that perspectives promoting oppression are excluded.
This progression within the academy at large—from principled pluralism to ideological gatekeeping—portends an inhospitable professional environment for Christian scholars, whose orthodox theological beliefs are viewed by many as oppressive. This gatekeeping is evident when detractors question elements of the emergent dogma, such as the concept of Christian privilege, which asserts that Christians enjoy certain benefits that accrue from the hegemonic status their religion has achieved in American society. Even the most rational and amiable of critiques can elicit a forceful rebuke.
Take the case of Perry Glanzer, a tenured full professor at Baylor University who has authored a dozen books and more than a hundred journal articles and book chapters. A scholar with particular expertise in the relationship between religion and education, Glanzer recently wrote a piece for the academic journal Religion & Education, a leading venue for publishing research studies that “advance civic understanding and dialogue on issues at the intersections of religion and education in public life.” His article explored complexities that are rarely acknowledged by scholarly treatments of Christian privilege, such as the disparities in experience across various Christian groups and the existence of secular privilege. It is important to note that while Glanzer critiqued certain narratives surrounding Christian privilege, he nevertheless accepted the notion that privilege exists and must be mitigated in order to foster an inclusive collegiate learning environment. His final paragraph concludes, “Overall, student affairs needs to champion and commit to creating the structures and conditions to which a just form of pluralism can flourish.”
Yet working within the dominant frame of principled pluralism provides no guarantee of civility and hospitality from our modern-day ideological gatekeepers. To wit, the negative reaction to Glanzer’s piece was strong and extended, stretching across a back-and-forth exchange that spanned two years and five total articles. Academic journals exist to facilitate formal conversation among scholars, so it is expected that the articles they publish will reference and respond to other works in the field. It is fair to say, however, that the intensity of this exchange was elevated above the typical collegial tone found in most peer-reviewed scholarship. The initial response reveals why the stakes are so high: this is ultimately a debate about the bounds and nature of legitimate academic inquiry.
In “Recognizing Christian Hegemony as Broader than Christian Privilege: Critical Religion Scholars Respond to Glanzer (2022),” co-authors representing seven different institutions disclosed the fundamental assumption guiding their response: “Christian privilege, Christian hegemony, and white Christian supremacy are real, historically significant, ongoing, and damaging, in ways that include but are not limited to, the material, psychological, and spiritual, both in American society and globally.” In addition to this inflammatory declaration, the authors articulated astonishing parameters for the debate: “While those of us who hold this assumption are willing to engage in conversation with any individual who wishes to discuss those related ideas, we will not engage with those who deny the very foundation of our work, and indeed, our real, lived experiences.”
Translation: Principled pluralism only applies to scholars who share our assumptions about reality, which are based on our personal experiences and therefore unquestionable. They must accept our views regarding the existence and negative effects of Christian privilege, hegemony, and supremacy. Otherwise, they may not have a seat at the academic table.
The shift in the academic state of play reflects a larger trend within American society toward a post-Christian order. Aaron Renn’s seminal First Things article, “The Three Worlds of Evangelicalism,” describes how a nation founded by a Protestant establishment gradually secularized, turning public sentiment against Christianity. According to Renn, Christian social identity was a net benefit for most of American history, during what he termed the “positive world.” The tide began to change in the early 1990s as the nation entered a “neutral world” in which Christianity was viewed neither positively nor negatively, but simply as one of many valid options available within a diverse society. The cultural engagement strategies evangelicals employed during this period of time, in which they “confidently engaged [secular] culture on its own terms in a pluralistic public square,” are reflected in the guidance offered by many leaders in Christian higher education today.
Renn argues, however, that we are no longer living in a neutral world. Instead, he posits that American society now holds a negative view of Christianity, such that “Christian morality is expressly repudiated and seen as a threat to the public good and the new public moral order.” According to Renn, a key cultural turning point was the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), which legalized gay marriage and “institutionalized Christianity’s new low status.” In a post-Obergefell world, orthodox Christianity has become increasingly perceived as retrograde, if not outright oppressive.
Against this backdrop, Renn argues that the American church needs to develop new strategies for responding to the social reality of the negative world. Indeed, the same could be said for parachurch organizations, such as Christian colleges and universities, which find themselves in a very different environment than they did even a decade ago. More to the point: campus leaders who attempt to maneuver through our negative world context by continuing to employ neutral world strategies, such as the cultural engagement approach reviewed previously, will likely struggle to maintain and achieve their institutional missions.
For example, in a negative world characterized by increasing hostility to orthodox Christianity, seeking to inhabit middle spaces through bridgebuilding and translation is unlikely to advance institutional interests within the wider academy. On the margins, such engagement may cultivate friendly relations, but fundamental differences in worldview will render those interactions superficial. This is because the Overton Window in American higher education has shifted significantly away from Christian perspectives, such that inhabiting the middle space requires believers to traverse a greater philosophical distance than ever before. In many cases, maintaining a seat at the table now means silencing—or even abandoning—certain convictions. For those who care about institutional mission and integrity, this will be a bridge too far.
Similarly, appeals to principled pluralism are likely to fall on deaf ears. Unlike in previous eras, leaders in Christian higher education cannot assume respect for diverse institutional missions within the wider academy. The pluralistic character of the neutral world has devolved into efforts to enforce an illiberal new orthodoxy, such that eradicating oppression has become the operative ethical imperative for many scholars. As Renn notes in his recent book Life in the Negative World: Confronting Challenges in an Anti-Christian Culture, in this social reality “a denatured Christianity is acceptable but orthodox Christianity is not.” Consequently, the negative world “pressures evangelicals to find ways to make their theological beliefs align with the ideologies of today’s secular culture.”
In an environment of unidirectional pressure, leading with an emphasis on civility and hospitality can pose risks to institutional character. A heightened emphasis on civility can push scholars and administrators, who are keenly aware of the unpopularity of orthodox Christianity in society at large, to hide their light under a bushel when dealing with the wider academy. Moreover, as Glanzer astutely observed in the Christ Animating Learning Blog, misunderstanding the requirements of biblical hospitality can warp the internal ethos of a Christian college, particularly when its employees believe the most welcoming approach to nonbelievers is to conceal aspects of the institution’s character in order to avoid causing offense. While Christian scholars should always exhibit Christlikeness, they must avoid the temptation to sanctify passivity in order to accommodate the spirit of the age.
The long-term faithfulness and flourishing of the Christian academy will depend upon its leaders realizing that the old wineskins of cultural engagement simply cannot hold the new wine of the negative world. Bold strategies are needed to meet the unique demands of our present cultural moment.
On the public policy front, national leaders appear to be more clear-eyed regarding the current state of play—an encouraging sign, given that sober judgment is essential to discerning how best to position Christian higher education in the negative world. In a fourth essay from the Spring 2024 issue of Advance, CCCU President Emerita Shirley Hoogstra draws upon Renn’s three-worlds paradigm to describe the headwinds that blow against attempts to preserve the legal frameworks that governed prior positive and neutral worlds. In particular, Hoogstra identifies four provisions vital to the ongoing survival of Christ-centered colleges and universities: the right to hire and fire based on mission, the right to maintain distinctive institutional policies, access to public funding, and exemptions from regulations that would undermine religious mission.
Campus leaders who recognize that a negative world strategy is now required in the adversarial realm of politics may falsely assume that neutral world tactics remain appropriate for the more collegial realm of academics. As noted above, however, such a bifurcated approach—one that acknowledges emergent external threats yet continues to emphasize bridgebuilding, pluralism, hospitality, and civility on campus—is far more likely to undermine institutional mission and identity in the negative world than to advance authentically Christian higher education. For this reason, the sector needs to undergo a negative world gear shift—a concerted exercise in which Christian colleges and universities interrogate and then replace entrenched yet outdated institutional mindsets and practices.
For faculty serving in Christian higher education, a negative world gear shift involves reframing what it means to be a successful scholar. Because knowledge production is a social enterprise mediated through the mechanism of peer review, academic work will be inescapably shaped by the dominant beliefs and values within the academy at large. In the emergent negative world, one can expect that scholarship grounded in overtly Christian frameworks will find fewer venues for publication, especially within elite circles. As the effects of this transition are felt, faculty must not internalize the judgments of the wider academy and either alter their research interests in response to its biases or discount the value of Christian scholarship altogether. Instead, we must understand this new reality as a limitation of the wider culture and look for ways to pursue our academic callings in spite of it. Elsewhere I have forwarded the notion of Christian self-determination, an approach that directs members of the Christian academy to find their ultimate professional meaning in pursuing the implications of the Lordship of Christ across every area of human endeavor. This perspective exudes confidence in the intrinsic value of producing scholarship that integrates faith and learning, and it reemphasizes the parachurch purpose of the Christian college. A posture of Christian self-determination empowers faculty to see their work as academically legitimate in and of itself, needing no external validation. Moreover, because faith integration is undertaken primarily for the benefit of the church, its success is not dependent upon the wider acceptance of the secular academy.
The negative world gear shift also requires redefining desired student outcomes. Today’s graduates are more likely to face discrimination and be forced to make difficult choices not presented to previous generations of American Christians. It is therefore imperative that faculty, spiritual life staff, and student affairs professionals are candid about this new reality and intentionally construct learning experiences that train students for the environment they will encounter when they depart from the relative safety of the campus community. To do this, Christian colleges will have to go beyond simply monitoring standard metrics like retention, graduation, and job placement rates, though those outcomes will remain important to any postsecondary institution. However, producing students who graduate on time and land a job within six months of graduation—but whose Christian faith commitments buckle under the pressures of the negative world—cannot be viewed as an institutional success. Serious consideration must be given to the elements of the educational program and the characteristics of the campus culture that will be most likely to foster the courage, resourcefulness, and commitment necessary for navigating the negative world with one’s faith intact.
Those responsible for leading Christian colleges and universities must undergo a negative world gear shift of their own, one that reexamines the operating principles that dominated the academy in previous positive and neutral worlds. Campus officials can no longer assume that a pluralistic public square will maintain a live-and-let-live attitude toward all players regardless of their commitments. In the past, the main source of external pressure against Christian mission originated from nonprofit activist groups or political figures. However, as popular sentiment further turns against Christianity in the negative world, campus leaders should expect that even commercial businesses may attempt to exert leverage to move Christian colleges and universities away from their sincerely held—yet publicly disfavored—religious beliefs. For this reason, governing boards and senior administrators must recalibrate their approach to external partnerships by prioritizing connection to ideologically aligned organizations. This recalibration will take two forms: mitigating threats and seizing opportunities. To mitigate threats, campus leaders should assess the likelihood of cancellation for vital resources, systems, and processes, and then work to create redundancy in high-risk areas by engaging multiple vendors. To seize opportunities, campus leaders should work to cultivate mutually beneficial relationships with kindred spirits in the commercial and nonprofit spaces who face similar challenges in our negative world context.
Striking the appropriate balance between fidelity to historic mission and adaptation to new realities is never an easy endeavor. Success depends upon a mix of perception, prudence, courage, and commitment. In many ways, the Christian academy has entered an uncharted territory, one that will require the fortitude of a pioneering spirit. For the sake of our callings as scholars and practitioners within Christian higher education, now is the time to lay aside our neutral world maps and get to the business of negative world exploration, cartography, and construction.
Image Credit: Unsplash
As an Anglican priest who studied briefly at Nashotah House I find this analysis very compelling. People there were brilliant, personable and willing to accommodate much of contemporary culture despite tradition and Biblical teachings.