Reflective Thoughts on the School of Social and Behavioral Sciences

By Bennett M. Judkins

Although the School of Social and Behavioral Sciences does not have a total mission statement that reflects a Christian focus, several of the programs in the school have traditionally had such a statement in their brochures and others are exploring that possibility now. In Psychology, for example, the most recent program description states:

“Faculty (in the Psychology program) at Lenoir-Rhyne blend the scientific approach to behavior with core Christian values and faith to resolve not only scientific explanation, but also moral and spiritual implications and provide a holistic view of human behavior.”

In Sociology, the brochure states:

“As a Sociology major, you (the student) will examine contemporary issues that affect society, such as social inequality, social justice and tension between different social groups, and relate them back to the fundamental Christian core curriculum that is so crucial to a Lenoir-Rhyne education. By approaching complex social situations in this manner, you will question not only the Christian dogma but your own sense of belief, thereby strengthening it and aptly applying Christian values to your understanding of society as a whole.”

Faculty in the graduate program in Counseling have discussed the possibility of introducing a Christian focus in some of their courses but have met some resistance from the APC and would perhaps find resistance from organizations in their profession. To my knowledge, there has been no specific interest in introducing a Christian focus in either Political Science or Economics, although the role of the church in economic social justice has been a concern of Professor Mauney and one to which he has organized several college events. Other activities may be occurring of which I am not aware.

I provide this background of the programs in the School of Social and Behavioral Science because I serve as Chair and because it is the primary administrative unit for which I have responsibility. Also, while I think there is interest on the part of some of our faculty in exploring how the school might “practice” the “Christian” and “Lutheran” mission of the college, most social sciences programs nationally do not have a tradition reflecting such an approach. If any thing, programs in the social sciences, especially Sociology and Anthropology, have generally been antagonistic to religious influence in their disciplines. They study religion but do not see a Christian perspective as making much of a contribution to the scientific (or even humanistic) study of human behavior or society, or even to the teaching of the discipline. I say this because even if our faculty were interested in pursuing a change, they would face an uphill battle with most of their colleagues outside the college and professional organizations and paradigms which have defined they work (research and teaching) for many years.

At the same time, I am convinced that many of our faculty would support a movement toward an intentionally pluralist model for the college (I am not sure that we are there yet) and I think some (for many different reasons) would support a movement toward a critical-mass model. Although we have many faiths represented in our school, and perhaps some agnostics, the Lutheran and Christian mission of the college is something that drew us here and upon which we can build a stronger educational environment for our students.

On a personal level, for what it is worth, I would like to see at least much, much more dialogue among all faculty, and staff, to explore both who we as an institution have been and who we could be in the future. I must confess, however, that my own religious beliefs (grounded in Methodism) are more oriented to some of what Benne calls “liberal theology” and 1^st Article theologies. I find his perspective on this to be extremely biased and limited in his analysis. However, it is on these points that I think the heart of who we are, or who we should be, is to be found.

If I were to pick a verse from the Bible that guides much of my own perspective on Christianity it would be Matthew 25: 31-40. In this passage, Jesus is identified with the hungry, the stranger, the poor the sick and the oppressed. Equally important, this “judgment scene” reaffirms in a startling way the criteria for genuine discipleship that is the hallmark of the whole gospel of Matthew and, for me, Christianity – it is not what one says, but what one does, that counts. It is also clear from this passage, at least to me, that the place of Jesus was not just to identify with the poor and oppressed but also to be with them and other marginal people in society.

Perhaps this is why it was easy for me to move from a potential calling to the Methodist ministry to the “calling” of a sociologist. But there is more to this than personal biography. To live on the “margins” does not mean to withdraw from society, but to be motivated and led by values and commitments different from an often contrary to the mainstream. To be on the margins, individually as a Christian and collectively as the church (and I might add the college of the church), is to put us into a position to watch, listen, and become engaged in a new way. As Jim Wallis, the editor of Sojourners points out, part of being on the margins is new association with the people who have been made marginal. I guess this is why I was somewhat drawn to the concept of the two kingdoms when I first heard about it. My understanding and application of that idea is very crude and theologically uninformed, but it is what has kept me here at Lenoir-Rhyne for nine years. I am saddened that many do not see things the same way.

I am still hopeful, however, for the college and its future. As much as my thinking is probably in a minority, I still support a stronger relationship between the college and the church and a more theologically informed dialogue and debate about that relationship. I know I have a lot to learn from my colleagues.