Lutheranism is based on several things in addition to our traditional beliefs in Christ, God, grace, justification, etc.  We also hold as almost sacred the concept of Word and Sacraments as being central concepts.  But not far behind are Lutherans’ belief that education is very important for the more complete development of believers in our earthly walk; we believe that education at all levels is important (perhaps even critical) for our spiritual and secular journey in life.

                  More than a century ago, Lutherans established institutions of higher learning in keeping with our esteem for education. The educational jewel founded by Lutherans in North Carolina is Lenoir-Rhyne College. Lenoir-Rhyne has a mission statement and purpose so clearly stated that all parents, prospective students and members of the community can see that it is clearly and unequivocally a college of the church.  I have been formally associated with this institution for more than one-half of my entire life (student, Trustee, professor).  I have seen Lenoir-Rhyne from a unique combination of perspectives in its developmental processes over the past 50 years.  I am very proud of this institution in all it does for all its various constituencies.  Is it perfect?  Of course not.  But can we make future changes is what is our institution?  Yes!   But how far do we go toward pulling Lenoir-Rhyne closer to our religious traditions without abandoning science?

                   The Benne book is an attempt to bring church-related colleges from what he decries as secularization toward their historic and theological roots.  He approaches this slide toward secularism as “darkening trends,” a “dilution of denominational identity,” and other critical comments. I certainly feel that some more movement toward at least his “critical mass” status would be desirable, but neither do I think we should embrace his desires to become almost a “seminary.”

                  As a Lutheran all of my life and a professional biologist for at least two-thirds of that time, I wrestle daily with my primal Christian beliefs and how my faith impacts my profession. Likewise my dedication and endorsement of the fundamental tenets of science and biology are also deeply entrenched. My faith into all theological beliefs has to be separated from my deep commitment to the principles and truths espoused by my profession.  A diagram of my position is of two circles abutting each other - one science and the other beliefs.  At the point where they abut, there I am (and probably many others)!!  When I consider my Christian beliefs about life,  I enter boldly the theological circle.  Conversely, my understanding of the factual (and philosophical) natures of science, I am enter the realm of science.  But neither can my faith be described by science because it is in the realm of beliefs.  My being embedded in science means that factual biology and science cannot be dealt with by matters of faith.  Nothing in science can shake my faith beliefs, but likewise theology cannot shake my unwavering beliefs in the tenets and principles taught in science; to try to do otherwise is very wrong for me.

                  Several contemporary issues (i.e., origin of life, evolution, and the Flood) are bitterly contested by both realms.  My faith enables me to embrace the biblical accounts verbatim; my understanding of science tells me that, factually, life originated billions of years ago, evolved over time, and that there was no such actual event as the Flood. There are a few scientists who believe that the factual scientific events can be subordinated into the literal Biblical accounts. Likewise, I know some scientists who try to demonstrate that Scriptures are irrelevant and untrue. I believe persons on both sides are guilty of either naiveté or intellectual dishonesty!   I simply  cannot reconcile or merge these two approaches (faith and fact) in my mind therefore, I compartmentalize them, and I am comfortable with that position.

                  I mention these above positions because the Benne book, I think, would attempt to move church-related colleges more in the direction of fundamentalism. This would, in effect, alienate science from the rest of the curriculum, from the entirety of science, and from an untenable religious position .  Permeating the book are statements and allusions to the author’s desirable approach to critical mass, fundamentalism, or getting back to our theological roots.  Benne asks us to accept without qualification the theological vision of “unsurpassability of its claim to be the vehicle of ultimate truth.” I can accept this up to a point, but if that theological vision leans toward literalism of the Bible or toward fundamentalism, I cannot support it.

                  Finally, Benne’s book has caused me to think, reflect, contemplate, and consider my educational principles.  I am pleased with Lenoir-Rhyne’s position of using a ideal blend of scholasticism blended with our theological heritage.  Long live Lenoir-Rhyne College, and may I continue to struggle positively with matters at the intersection of faith and fact.  Also, I am proud of my intentional ambiguity.

                                                                                                                            Paul E.Lutz, 
                                                                                                                            Visiting Professor of Biology