Position Paper on Faith and Institutional Purpose

Gail Summer

            Participation in the discussions related to Benne’s book Quality with Soul has renewed my purpose for being at this kind of institution and has brought to the front much that has been allowed to be pushed to a back burner in my Lutheran upbringing.

                I think what emerged for me, as a result of these discussions, is that many of us hold different views on the purpose of Lenoir-Rhyne College.  We all may be more familiar with the Mission after our recent journey through SACS, but I don’t think we interpret that Mission the same way.  Bottom line—I think we can chant it (or parts of it), but we can’t talk it with clarity and fullness.  In our group, some clearly see being a “Christian Institution” as a potential threat to what we might be able to teach.  It appeared that our “Christian” heritage might to some mean that we must teach a certain set of beliefs (such as teaching creationism vs evolution).  I don’t think our Christian heritage equates with limiting what we teach at all.  It will only be through discussions such as these that we will be able to all better understand our Mission from the Lutheran perspective and therefore all be in better concert.  If we all better understood the vision, we could articulate it as fully as we live it.

                In terms of ethos (living it), there is much occurring on this campus that very much supports our Mission.  Our students have many opportunities for “formation” while here, in and out of classes.  That is important.  Students should be immersed in, but not drowned by, opportunities to clarify personal faith and liberate mind and spirit.  It should be the primary purpose of this institution to provide numerous opportunities for students to do just that.  Students should have choices in convocations, in courses (where hopefully they are being challenged to deconstruct and reconstruct beliefs in all aspects of life), in CAB events, in SGA events, in just socializing in residence halls, and in relationships with their professors to figure out for themselves who they are.  That is formation.  It comes best when such opportunities are offered with no pressure, but in good enough number, and with intentional purpose for those participating to leave each time a little more “formed.”  I am of the belief that we live out our vision better than we can articulate it.

                In terms of persons, I think we might need to more actively address recruiting a higher percentage of Lutheran students.  I now wonder if we lose some Lutheran high school seniors who might look at us because we are not better able to articulate our vision—we need to be less apologetic for who we are and the undergirding foundation that supports the experience students get once here.  I must admit that I would have been one of those who would have “soft peddled” our vision prior to this experience because I have clearly spent too much time in secular places prior to coming here.  I have had too much “separation of Church and State” drilled into my head as a professional educator.  I now realize that separation and Christian vision do not need to be mutually exclusive.  In terms of faculty, I don’t know that it is important that more faculty be Lutheran as much as faculty deserve to be part of the shared vision of the institution—not just in lip-service, but truly brought on board by deeper discussion like these have been.  Perhaps all new faculty should have on-going discussions in their first year here about who we are and how we breathe life into who we say we are.  Why allow faculty to flounder or wander about figuring that out on their own?  It’s more than just reading the Mission Statement, it’s hearing administrators and faculty talking about the lifeblood of it.  It’s about sharing the vision.