Report
on the September-November, 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
November 11, 2002
At the conclusion
of the April-May, 2002 discussion series on “Faith and Institutional
Purpose,” Dr. Wayne Powell, then Dean and Academic Vice President, asked me
whether I would be willing to continue this discussion into the Fall semester of
the 2002-2003 academic year. One
item about which there was a clear consensus from the April-May discussions, was
that such discussions were vitally important for institutional
self-understanding and identity, and ought to continue.
After consulting others in my department (school), I agreed to help
facilitate another discussion (from September to November of 2002) of Benne’s
book Quality with Soul: How Six Premier Colleges and Universities Keep
Faith with Their Religious Traditions.
The members participating in the discussion were the following:
1. Blosser, Philip: Blosser@lrc.edu (Faculty, Philosophy)
2. Brandes, Rand: Brandes@lrc.edu (Faculty, English)
3. Fanning, Marsha: Fanning@lrc.edu (Faculty, Biology)
4. Fletcher, Donna: FletcherD@lrc.edu (Faculty, Counseling/Staff, Advising)
5. Gilman, Regis: GilmanR@lrc.edu (Administration)
6. Glass, Joe: GlassJ@lrc.edu (Faculty, Religion)
7. Kendall, Peter J.: KendallP@lrc.edu (Vice Pres. of Administration & Finance)
8. Kinard, Karl W.: kkinard@catawba.edu (Trustee)
9. Lisa Johnson: JohnsonLI@lrc.edu (Faculty, English)
10. Lutz, Paul: LutzP@lrc.edu (Faculty, ex-Trustee)
11. Max, George: Max@lrc.edu (Faculty, Chemistry)
12. Pasour, Katherine: PasourK@lrc.edu (Faculty, Health Sciences)
13. Summer, Gail: SummerG@lrc.edu (Associate Dean/Faculty, Education)
When asked to classify Lenoir-Rhyne College in terms of these
categories, the majority of participants placed the college, as did the
April-May discussants, somewhere between a “critical mass” and
“intentionally pluralist” institution.
As in the earlier discussions, there were those, on the one hand, who
felt that the college needed to shore up its position in terms of securing a
“critical mass” of Lutheran students, faculty, and staff and clarifying what
it means to have a Christian perspective, as stated in the institution’s
mission statement. On the other
hand, there were also those who felt “comfortable” with the classification
of “intentional pluralism” they attributed to the college and felt any move
towards “critical mass” (let alone Benne’s category of “orthodoxy”) as
a threat to the academic freedom and diversity presently experienced at
Lenoir-Rhyne College.
One recurring theme throughout the discussion centered on the controversy concerning the biological theory of evolution. In contrast to previous participants in the April-May discussions from the biology department, those involved in the September-November discussion tended to draw a sharp distinction between matters of “religion” and matters of “science,” viewing these as two independent realms, respectively, of “faith” and “fact.” The concern animating their discussion was the desire to preserve academic integrity alongside and independently of religious faith. At the same time, there were voices that dissented from the view that religious faith could (or should) be “compartmentalized” in a fashion that would isolate it from the rest of life, including academic life. One participant sounded a clear Lutheran note by suggesting that the true “call to worship” occurs in the classroom, in the vocation of a professor to a particular discipline, and shouldn’t be understood as the exclusive province of a chapel program.
One participant accented the need for institutional integrity by arguing that we should “say what we mean and mean what we say,” echoing a sentiment expressed frequently in the April-May discussions. At least two participants expressed the concern that that Lenoir-Rhyne has considerable work to do before rising to the level of the commitments expressed in its mission statement. One participant referred to the “overall lack of Christian vision and ethos” at Lenoir-Rhyne, and called for initiating an institutional process “to reflect, articulate, and act upon our Christian vision.” A couple of others participants expressed confidence that the college had not strayed from its original Christian vision and ethos and that things are just about as they should be.
Reflecting this latter view, some participants tended to see the province of Christian faith on campus primarily in terms of external symbols, such as religious icons, the chapel program, prayers before convocations and faculty assemblies, and in principles of behavioral courtesy and ethical integrity. A very few, going further, regarded the perspective of faith as also bearing upon the presuppositional perspective from which academic material is presented and critically analyzed, though this was not a dominant view among the September-November discussants.
Though there was no strict ‘assessment’ requirement in the September-November discussion, as there were in the April-May discussions, the same procedure was employed of inviting all participants to write an end-of-term “position paper” expressing their personal conclusions about the relation of “faith and institutional purpose” in their individual areas of responsibility at the college. These are posted for public viewing on the college website at: http://www.lrc.edu/library/faith_purpose/f_p.htm.