Report
on the April-May, 2002 Discussion of
“Faith
and Institutional Purpose”
based on Robert Benne’s Quality with Soul: How Six Premier
Colleges and Universities Keep Faith with their Religious Traditions
Philip
Blosser
May 31, 2002
On February 25, 2002, the Lenoir-Rhyne
College Fund For Excellence awarded a grant of $750 to fund a proposal, under
the auspices of the Center for Theology, involving a review of the religious
aspect of our institutional mission.
The objective was to mount six-week discussion, originally for a group
of twenty persons, centering on a book by Robert Benne of our sister ELCA
institution, Roanoke College, in Virginia, entitled Quality with Soul:
How Six Premier Colleges and Universities Keep Faith with Their Religious
Traditions. The money from the
Fund was used to purchase 33 copies of the book and pay for refreshments. Participation was solicited from the Board
of Trustees, administrators, staff, and faculty members, in order to best serve
the purposes of the discussion. Due to
unexpected number of persons who expressed interest in participating in the
project (at least 40), it was decided to form two groups to accommodate as many
participants as possible, with Dr. David Ratke volunteering to serve as
facilitator for the second group.
Arrangements were made for the two groups to
meet at different times, the first on Wednesday afternoons from 4:00-5:00pm,
the second on Fridays from 3:00-4:00pm.
Despite this effort to accommodate as many as possible, seven of the 40
persons who originally expressed interest in participating in the discussion
had to drop out because of scheduling conflicts. A total of 33 volunteers finally participated in the project. Of this number, around three were prevented
from participating more than once or twice.
But the majority of the participants came to at least four of the six
sessions, and a total of 29 (or all but 4) participants, by the conclusion of
the six-week discussion, had produced position papers outlining their views of the
relationship of faith to institutional purpose in their own areas of
responsibility in the college. 21 of
these position papers were submitted in electronic form with permission to post
them to a Lenoir-Rhyne College website.
These can be viewed at the following URL: <http://www.lrc.edu/library/faith_purpose/f_p.htm>,
which is linked to the Carl A. Rudisill Library webpage (courtesy of Delaine
Fox).
The members participating in the discussion
were the following:
Beidler, Paul: BeidlerP@lrc.edu (Faculty,
English)
Blosser,
Philip: Blosser@lrc.edu (Faculty,
Philosophy)
Burnside, Dale: BurnsideD@lrc.edu (Faculty,
Biology)
Cline, Sandra: sange@bellsouth.net (Board of Trustees)
Earle, Claudia: EarleC@lrc.edu (Staff,
Director of College Planning and Assessment)
Huffman, Shirley B.: HuffmanS@lrc.edu
Ivy, Kathy: Ivey@lrc.edu
(Faculty, English)
Judkins, Ben: Judkins@lrc.edu
(Faculty, Sociology)
Ludwig, David: Ludwig@lrc.edu
(Faculty, Psychology)
McCrae, Marya: McCraeM@lrc.edu (Staff, Director of Planned
Giving)
Mauney, William M.: MauneyW@lrc.edu (Faculty, Economics)
Murphy, Walter: Murphy@lrc.edu
(Faculty, Psychology)
Sasser, Elizabeth: SasserE@lrc.edu
(Staff, Director of the Career Center)
Scott, Stephen: Scott@lrc.edu
(Faculty, Biology)
Stallings-Sahler, Susan: Ssahler@lrc.edu
(Faculty,
Occupational Therapy)
Weisner, Andrew: Weisner@lrc.edu
(Faculty, Religion; Campus Pastor)
Winter, Robert: Winter@lrc.edu
(Faculty, Art)
Yoder, Larry: Yoder@lrc.edu
(Faculty, Religion)
Allen, Julia: AllenJ@lrc.edu
(Dir. Corporate and Foundation Relations)
Anderson, Nancy: AndersonN@lrc.edu (Administration, Office of Institutional Research)
Blackmon, Ann Marie: BlackmonA@lrc.edu
(Staff, Benefits/Risk Coordinator)
Fletcher, Donna:
FletcherD@lrc.edu (Advising &
Academic Services; Faculty, Social Sciences)
Fox, Delaine: foxds@lrc.edu (Assistant Librarian)
Gober, Jerald: GoberJ@lrc.edu (Associate Professor, Chair,
School of Buisiness)
Gwin, Anita Johnson: JohnsonG@lrc.edu
(Dean of Students)
Haas, Harold: haash@lrc.edu (Faculty, Psychology)
Jackson,
Sally: JacksonS@lrc.edu (Faculty, Occupational Therapy)
Powell, Wayne: PowellW@lrc.edu (Academic Dean)
Ratke, David: RatkeD@lrc.edu
(Faculty, Religion)
Schell, Vicki: VSchell@lrc.edu Chair, School of Computing
Sciences and Mathematics
Shores, Bruce: ShoresB@lrc.edu (Faculty, Art)
Tart, Rebecca: TartR@lrc.edu
(Faculty, Biology)
Von Dohlen, Richard: VonDohlenR@lrc.edu
(Faculty, Philosophy)
Robert Benne’s book chronicles the decline of
faith and loss of connection between church-related colleges and their
supporting religious institutions and traditions, and shows how six premier
institutions (Calvin, Wheaton, Notre Dame, St. Olaf, Valpraiso, and Baylor)
have managed to resist that trend and “keep faith” with their religious
traditions. He lays out suggestions for
how faculty, administrators and trustees can coordinate their efforts in
specific ways to re-connect with the religious tradition of their college or
university--ways that foster and refine academic quality, rather than
sacrificing them.
A couple of statistics from Benne’s book are
illustrative of ways in which ELCA schools could profitably re-think their
loosening relationships to their supporting religious constituencies. The University of Notre Dame boasts a
staggering retention rate of 95% from the first to second year. This is despite the many ways it is viewed
as “stuck in the middle ages,” with its 27 single-sex dorms and system of adult
“rectors” who function in loco parentis by enforcing university rules
regarding alcohol and visiting hours and preside over religious services in
each dorm. On the other hand, only 5%
of high school graduates from the largest Lutheran denomination in America (the
ELCA) find their way to Lutheran colleges or universities, which tend to have
fairly unrestrictive, laissez-faire policies and minimal “public health”
ethical standards (and Lenoir-Rhyne College has even more permissive policies
regarding Greek organizations, alcohol, and residence hall visiting hours than
most ELCA colleges). Statistics such as
these, and their implications, were the focus of considerable discussion.
Benne classifies institutions according to
their relationship with their supporting religious traditions in four
divisions: (1) “orthodox,” referring to those with the most thoroughly
integrated vision of faith & learning and campus ethos, (2) “critical mass,”
referring to those with a majority of denominational adherents among faculty,
administration, staff, and students, but some diversity, (3) “intentionally
pluralist,” referring to those which intentionally encourage diversity while
allowing their supporting tradition an assured voice, if not a privileged one,
and (4) “accidentally pluralist,” referring to those which have no clear
purpose of maintaining their traditional religious affiliation. Benne also distinguishes between “first
article” and “second article” institutions, depending on whether they embrace
only the first article of the Creed (God as “Creator” of all) or also
intentionally embrace the Second (Jesus Christ as “Redeemer”). Further, he distinguishes between
institutions that regard their religious vision as a (“value-added”) “add-on”
component to an otherwise value-free (secular) academic program, and those that
regard their religious vision is “integrated” into every facet of their
curricular and extra-curricular mission.
He argues that a healthy connection between a college and its sponsoring
church cannot be maintained without a sufficient number from both
constituencies who believe the Christian faith to be “comprehensive,
unsurpassable, and central” to their vision of life and learning.
When asked to classify Lenoir-Rhyne College
in terms of these categories, the majority of participants placed the college
somewhere between a “critical mass” and “intentionally pluralist” institution,
though a few described the college as being “in danger” of falling into the
category of “accidentally pluralist.”
One participant openly expressed preference for a “first article”
institutional vision (one that would affirm God as “Creator” but not highlight
the distinctives of belief in Christ), while several saw an erosion of “second
article” affirmations of the centrality of Christ as a “watering down” of the
institution’s distinctively Christian commitments. The participants were divided as to those who took an “add-on” or
an “integrated” view of the religious mission in its relation to the program of
the college as a whole, although most viewed the “add-on” model as involving a
compromise and “watering down” the relevance of a Christian perspective. Only one participant claimed to see no erosion
of institutional mission at the college over the last two decades, but this
person’s focus was on external considerations, such as the opening of formal
college convocations with prayer, the existence of weekly chapel services,
etc., rather than on how the vision articulated in the mission statement
actually plays out in the classroom or in residence life. The majority of participants saw serious
challenges for the college in terms of tensions that exist, particularly within
certain disciplines, between the assumptions made by prevailing theories in
academe and the traditional claims of the Christian religion.
One participant, addressing the changes in
values within our culture over the last few decades, wrote: “We have gone from
a general acceptance of creation and absolute moral standards to a general
acceptance of evolutionary theory and relative moral standards. Sin has been re-defined from going against
God’s will to damaging someone’s self-esteem.
Diversity is the preferred concept, with the added twist that acceptance
of others means that their beliefs and life-styles are just as valid as your
own. The logic driving the ideology of
our culture is ‘individual rights’—that each person has the right to adapt to
the environment as he or she chooses.” A number of participants also expressed concern about an
uncritical acceptance of prevailing secular assumptions, such as relativism,
subjectivism, and naturalism (a rejection of the supernatural) in classroom
discussions of contemporary theories.
A number of participants noted the gap
between how we describe and portray ourselves in our mission statement and in
our fund-raising campaigns, on the one hand, and the day-to-day realities of
classroom and residence life dominated by a secularized outlook and attitudes
of indifference and even hostile towards religion. A number of participants used the word “hypocrisy” at this point,
pointing out the gap between the college’s mission statement (and fund-raising
discourse, for example) and the practical secular realities of classroom and
campus life.
Also noted was the irony that Lenoir-Rhyne
College, although representing a traditionally more theologically conservative
constituency than most ELCA schools, nevertheless has among the most liberal
and permissive policies of residence life, allowing laissez-faire policies to
prevail in dorms, alcohol on campus, the existence of Greek organizations
(which are non-existent among most other ELCA schools, including those of the
most theologically liberal constituencies).
As one of the participants wrote: “While Lenoir-Rhyne College has many
elements of vision, ethos, and persons which are hospitable to Christian
formation, it seems to me that the College is most perniciously influenced by
‘secularizing’ trends in [its] . . . laissez-faire approach towards students.”
One of the most consistently expressed
perceptions among participants was that there is considerable confusion about
our institutional identity as a college, or, more accurately, a conflating of
messages about our identity and how we present ourselves. No less consistently, participants expressed
a broad desire for more openness and dialogue on the subject, and interest in
continuing to engage the question of the role of faith in higher
education.
A recommendation that surfaced repeatedly
among different participants was that Lenoir-Rhyne College should work towards
shoring up its identity as a college of the Lutheran tradition by insuring a
“critical mass” of Lutherans both among faculty and administrators, as well as
students. Just as clearly, participants
expressed the concern that no policy should be implemented that would undermine
the atmosphere of welcome extended to those of other faith-traditions present
at the college.
It was also clearly noted, however, that a
“critical mass” of Lutherans would not necessarily a guarantee of Christian
vision or ethos. As one participant
wrote: “I am concerned . . . that some may equate being a communicant in the
sponsoring tradition with the practice of Christian virtues and
disciplines.” The possibility of this
disparity, in turn, suggested to a number of participants the need for ongoing
education in core values of the Lutheran/Christian tradition for all faculty,
administrators, and students, not only for new arrivals.
A number of specific suggestions that bear
special mention include the following: (1) just as the college has pursued a
policy of “writing across the curriculum,” so it should pursue a policy of
“faith across the curriculum,” encouraging ongoing discussion about the
interface between issues of faith and learning; (2) to this end the college
ought to make an analysis of the college mission statement a requisite part of
the curriculum, not only in classes such as Gen 110, but in other classes as
well; (3) each of the “schools” represented at the college ought to be required
to produce their own “mission statements,” explicitly articulating the ways in
which they seek to relate faith to learning in fulfillment of the institutional
mission; (4) just as the college undergoes a self-assessment study for SACS
every ten years, so it ought to undergo a self-assessment of the religious
component of its mission, inviting a team of evaluators, perhaps including the
likes of Robert Benne, to the campus for this purpose; (5) the college homepage
on the web ought to openly exhibit the religious symbols that express the
institution’s affiliation with its religious traditions; and (6) discussions of
“faith and institutional purpose” of the kind supported by the Fund for
Excellence ought to be continued on an annual basis.
For purposes of assessment for this project,
two criteria were used in assessing the “outcomes” of the project in reporting
back to the Lenoir-Rhyne College Fund for Excellence. The first of these
criteria was participation. The
original goal was to solicit the participation of up to 20 members representing
the faculty, board, staff & administration for the purpose of cultivating
an on-going dialogue concerning the relation of institutional mission, faith
& learning among those constituencies.
On these grounds, the involvement of 33 participants, from each of these
constituencies, amply testifies to the success and interest of these
constituencies in the project.
The second criterion was the participants’ position
papers—both in terms of percentage of participation and guidelines
met. Initially, the target was a yield
of 75% participation in the production of position papers. On this ground, the participation of 29 of
the 33 participants offers ample reason to conclude that the project has met
with undeniable interest. The secondary
proviso was that the papers would conform to the following sorts of guidelines:
While not all of the papers can be said to
have met all of these criteria, certainly the majority of them did
succeed in addressing most of them. The
results can be viewed, as mentioned above, at the aforementioned website. I would strongly encourage anyone interested
to carefully read these position papers, not only for the detailed care with
which most of them were produced, but for their telling observations,
penetrating insights, and many creative and useful suggestions.
The concluding summaries
offered by both groups yield the following general, and sometimes disparate,
results:
Observations:
In its mission statement,
Lenoir-Rhyne College expressly declares its commitment to its supporting
Lutheran tradition and to a Christian perspective. Our formal celebrations (commencements, convocations, weekly
chapel services, etc.) emphasize this Christian commitment through formal
invocations, prayers, Scripture readings, hymns, and statements. Yet there seems to be some level of
disconnection between who we say we are in such ways, and what we in fact do as
an institution. In short, there is some
confusion as to our identity in how we understand ourselves and present
ourselves to the public as an institution.
Unintentional reactions have driven our responses to the future rather
than intentionally basing our responses on a clearly integrated identity. In order to survive and prosper as an
institution of higher learning, we need a clear sense of institutional identity
and purpose. Retrieving a clear and
integrated sense of identity and purpose requires a variety of initiatives. First and foremost, it requires on-going
programmatic discussion about the relationship of “faith” and “learning,” the
role of faith in higher education and residence life, and the relation of the
college to its supporting tradition.
Second, it requires clarification of our institutional stand with respect
to “first article” (God the Creator) and “second article” (God the Son)
commitments. There has been an erosion
of the “second article” in revisions of our mission statements over the past
decades, and the “second article” needs to be institutionally affirmed
if the Christian perspective is to be understood as “comprehensive,
unsurpassable, and central” to its vision of higher education. This would require the commitment of
administrative leadership and considerable work.
In response to the first commandment, the college should be committed to love and praise God through the use of the mind. We should embrace Jesus’ own model of fostering critical thinking rather than blind acceptance of prevailing ideas and prejudices. We should foster the practice of bringing together in creative confrontation the different ways of knowing proper to the respective cultures of science and faith. We should not shy away from the discussion of religious beliefs in the classroom, but take confidence in the conviction that strong beliefs expressed can enhance the quality of conversation and learning in higher education. We ought to see learning as something that involves faith and to identify points of compatibility or incompatibility with the commitments of faith in the various theories with which we deal in the classroom.
A number of open-ended questions that were left unresolved by the discussion groups include the following: How does a college that seeks to integrate “faith” and “learning” adopt to the larger culture of the around it, including the culture of secular academic institutions? How can we reconcile “scientific method” with faith? Is it possible to have an “add-on” approach in fields that are based on different (secular) assumptions, or should we seek to integrate our understanding of these fields with our Christian commitments as well? Why is it important to “wed” or engage the secular and Christian ways of “knowing”? How might we use an assessment of our church-relatedness?