Happy Holidays From Queer X at ASU!

Help us grow in 2025

Our donors will match all gifts through Dec 31

The Idea of the Holy at the Secular University

I was surprised to receive an ASU email from our Humanities Institute saying both “Season’s Greetings” and “Happy Holidays.”  ASU does mark on its official calendar that December 25-26 is the “Holiday Break.”  Can anything be holy at a secular university that is committed to decolonizing and exposing the problem of “heteronormativity”?  On the surface, universities like ASU claim to be committed to the societies in which they are placed, but in practice, they do not recognize the values of those societies in a proportionate way.  This deliberate ambiguity reflects deeper philosophical commitments at play within the secular university.

The ASU Humanities Institute exemplifies these commitments in its stated mission to study “what it means to be a human in a world of change.” On the surface, this sounds noble, even profound. But the emphasis on change betrays an underlying philosophical commitment expressed in thinkers like Heraclitus, Nietzsche, and his intellectual progeny, Michel Foucault. These thinkers, though distinct in their contexts and emphases, converge on one crucial point: there is no permanence, no eternal truth, no immutable reality. Instead, all is flux, temporality, and appearance.

This philosophical framework precludes the recognition of anything holy. The word “holiday” itself, derived from “holy day,” suggests a time set apart, imbued with a meaning that transcends the mundane. It is a connection to what is eternal and changeless.  In the secular university, where only the impermanent is acknowledged, the very concept of holiness—something set apart and eternal—is incompatible. When all is change, nothing can be holy.  This is consistent with the moral philosophy seen on display at ASU’s Humanities Institute and Project Humanities.  

The Cult of Change

The Humanities Institute’s emphasis on change aligns with Nietzsche’s declaration of the “death of God.” For Nietzsche, the death of God meant the end of objective, eternal values. In their place, humanity is left to construct its own meaning in a world where power dynamics and individuals will take center stage. Foucault extends this Nietzschean insight, asserting that power, not truth, governs our understanding of reality. What is studied and taught within the humanities reflects this perspective: a rejection of eternal truths in favor of constructed narratives.  A perpetual worry, “am I getting my social justice?” replaces any concern about divine justice.  

This is starkly evident in ASU’s Queer X program. Described as a “new intellectual community and initiative” at the Humanities Institute, Queer X aims to foster “queer and transgender scholarship, interdisciplinary collaboration, and critical dialogue about LGBTQIA2S+ culture, history, and politics.” Its mission includes situating ASU as a “knowledge hub” for these emerging fields. The program’s emphasis on “emerging (sub)fields in the interstices yet to be named” reveals a commitment to the fluid, the mutable, and the ever-changing. Even categories of identity and scholarship are acknowledged as provisional, subject to reinterpretation and reinvention.  Gender identity is not stable but can change from moment to moment. 

Here, the philosophical commitments of Heraclitus, Nietzsche, and Foucault are operationalized. The idea that nothing is fixed—that even identities and disciplines are fluid—becomes the foundation for ASU’s aspiration to academic leadership. This is not a vision of scholarship that seeks to understand the eternal truths about human nature, morality, or purpose. Rather, it is a scholarship that revels in its ability to deconstruct and destabilize.  If it has a permanent concern, it is personal identity around sexual gratification.

The Secular University and the Holy

The secular university’s discomfort with holiness is not merely an oversight or an attempt to be inclusive. It is the logical outworking of a worldview that denies the existence of anything eternal. To recognize a “holiday” as a “holy day” would be to admit that there is something beyond the mutable and the temporal, something that transcends human power and interpretation. Such an admission would challenge the very foundation of the secular university’s intellectual commitments.

Instead, the university substitutes vague platitudes about the “holidays” and “seasons.” These terms are stripped of any transcendent meaning, becoming placeholders for a time of year that is acknowledged but not celebrated in any substantive way. This hollowing out of meaning reflects the broader cultural trends of secularization, but it is particularly pronounced within the university, which prides itself on being at the vanguard of cultural and intellectual change.  Their “Holiday Break” just so happens to fall on Christmas when the majority of those ASU serves recognzie that the eternal “Word of God became flesh and made his dwelling among us” (John 1:14).

The Consequences of Denying the Holy

The denial of holiness has profound implications for the university’s mission. Traditionally, the humanities sought to explore the great questions of existence: What is true? What is good? What is beautiful? These questions presuppose that there are answers—that truth, goodness, and beauty are real and knowable. The secular university, however, increasingly denies these presuppositions. The Humanities Institute, in its annual report, celebrates skepticism in daily life.  In the place of what is eternal, it offers a vision of humanity as a creature of change, bound by the contingencies of history, culture, and power.

This vision is not without its attractions. It promises liberation from the constraints of tradition, offering the individual the freedom to define their own identity and purpose. But this freedom comes at a cost. In rejecting the eternal, the university also rejects the foundation for meaning, leaving students and faculty adrift in a sea of change. The result is a pervasive sense of alienation as individuals struggle to find purpose in a world where nothing is fixed or certain.  This loss is expressed in how ASU’s Humanities Institute defines its “Queer X” program: “The letter ‘X’ is a guiding prompt for this initiative. ‘X’ has lived an intrepid life in trans*, queer, feminist, and crip theories alongside popular culture and everyday linguistics.”

A Call to Clarity

The secular university’s rejection of the holy is not inevitable. It is the result of specific philosophical commitments that can and should be challenged. The Christian tradition offers a counter-narrative, one that affirms the reality of eternal truths and the possibility of knowing them. Not only is God holy, we are sinners who cannot stand before the holy God.  But God did not leave us in that condition.  God so loved the world that he gave his only Son so that any who believe in him may have eternal life.  

What is this eternal life?  It isn’t unending physical life.  Christianity teaches both the just and the unjust will be raised from the dead.  To have eternal life is to know God and Christ Jesus, whom he sent.  In our finitude, and even as sinners, we can connect with what is eternal and unchanging.  The knowledge of God cannot be taken from us, it cannot be lost, and a secular university cannot suppress it.  And it gets better: we are given 52 holy days, the Lord’s Day, to celebrate these truths and draw near in worship to the eternal God.

The contrast between these two visions is stark. On the one hand, the secular university offers a vision of humanity as a creature of change, bound by the contingencies of history and culture, in bondage to his own desires and without any fixed identity beyond the flux of feelings. On the other hand, the Christian tradition affirms that humanity is made in the image of an eternal God, capable of knowing truth, goodness, and beauty. The former leads to alienation and despair; the latter offers eternal life with faith, hope, and love.

Conclusion

The greetings of “Happy Holidays” and “Season’s Greetings” from institutions like ASU are more than mere words. They reflect a worldview that denies the holy, rejecting the eternal in favor of the mutable and the temporal. This worldview, rooted in the philosophies of Heraclitus, Nietzsche, and Foucault, has become the foundation for much of what is taught and celebrated within the secular university.  There is nothing holy; any desire, no matter how harmful, will be celebrated. 

Yet this foundation is not unassailable. By affirming the reality of eternal truths and the possibility of knowing them, Christians can offer a compelling alternative. The holidays, rightly understood, are not merely a break from routine. They are a reminder of the eternal realities that give life its meaning and purpose. In a world of change, this message is more needed than ever.

What can be done?  While secular universities like ASU continue to double down on the kinds of programs highlighted by their Project Humanities and Humanities Institute, programs that say all is change and our identity is no more than our desires, parents and students have options.  Be warned that this is what you will encounter at places like ASU.  ASU says it takes responsibility for the communities it serves and yet it cannot offer them anything eternal, transcendent, or holy–find a university that can.  Ask prospective professors: what do you believe is holy and how do you know?


Image Credit: Unsplash

Print article

Share This

Owen Anderson

Owen Anderson is a professor of philosophy and religious studies at Arizona State University and a teaching associate at Phoenix Seminary. He pastors Historic Christian Church of Phoenix which is a Reformed Church. For hobbies he writes on his Substack (Substack.com/@drowenanderson) about radical liberalism at ASU and is a certified jiu jitsu instructor under Rener and Ryron Gracie.

One thought on “Happy Holidays From Queer X at ASU!

  1. To the extent that any institution pursues equality for all of its members is an extent to which that institution pursues something eternal and absolute. Again, playing Jenga with secular approaches and ideas is not even Biblical. Romans 2 tells us this when it scolds the religious as falling behind the unbelievers in how they treat others. How were many people who were different treated during Christendom? Whether the differences were in sexual orientation or gender identity, whether the differences were in race and/or class, or whether the differences were in religion Christendom preached a hierarchy and authoritarianism. And though values of sexual orientation or gender identity are portrayed as a proclamation that there are no eternal values, the pursuit of equality is a pursuit of something eternal.

    BTW, to be surprised that the unbeliever doesn’t accept what the believer sees is holy is disingenuous.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *