The Relationship of the Christian Faith to Lenoir-Rhyne College’s

Institutional Purpose: A Faculty Perspective

Rebecca Creech Tart, Ph.D.

Upon receiving a letter from Dr. Robert Spuller offering an appointment of full-time term assistant professor in August of 1998, I was thrilled to read the following-

“In considering this appointment you are encouraged to reflect upon the aims and purpose of Lenoir-Rhyne College. As an institution of the Church, the College takes seriously its mission to give witness to the Christian heritage and its values. The College respects the academic freedom and religious integrity of each faculty member. In return, the College expects you to acknowledge its church relationship and Christian commitment in a manner which upholds your convictions and those of Lenoir-Rhyne College.”¹

This is precisely one of the reasons that I chose to be here rather than at a large, state institution. Yet in the seven semesters since, I have come to understand that the above paragraph from this contract needed qualification. The “Christian heritage and its values”, and Lenoir-Rhyne College’s “Christian commitment” are to be “acknowledged” and “taken seriously” only in relation to activities outside the classroom¹. Therefore, I have been disheartened by the separate worlds’ philosophy that I have encountered during my short time as biology faculty. Why do we find it acceptable for our Christian faith to have a voice, yes even a prominent voice, at beginning and ending academic year convocations, Baccalaureate, and Commencement exercises but students are to learn of a professor’s faith quite by accident? Human reason and scientific exploration have not answered all of life’s questions, nor have they admitted, much less entertained, some very important ones.

It is my belief that serious people of faith do not live in separate, nonintersecting domains of intellect and of faith rather each informs and influences the another. Agnostics, atheists, and individuals of superficial religious affiliation may progress through life as if only one domain exists, that of intellect. This occurs primarily, I think, because secular education does not reveal its belief systems of humanism and naturalism that govern the underlying assumptions of its theories. One would expect among the academic disciplines of a “College of the Church” a different perspective. Even if never having experienced integrated learning in one’s own educational pursuits, Christian intellectuals know their own thought processes. They have dealt with conflicts that arise between secular knowledge and their faith, and after the collision surfaced with a belief or opinion that incorporates both.

As humans, God has designed us in His image; a trinity of soul, mind, and body (Genesis 1:27, I Thessalonians 5:23). These parts make up the whole. What it means to be human requires all three. It is unrealistic, I venture unhealthy, to try to exist as only a partial human in the learning environment. Such fragmentation is artificial in terms of what being human is. Otherwise, are we not just an animal species highly developed in mind and body but possessing no soul? As God would have it, He created mankind as a “marriage” of the best of heaven and earth. If we as Christian intellectuals “buy into” the secularism of education then we dismiss the heavenly part of us that we admit by our faith exists. Moreover, where else but at a Christian institution of higher learning should this not be the case. So too I believe for a “College of the Church” to maintain separate worlds, one world of the intellectual classroom and another world outside its lecture halls, is artificial and unhealthy.

As a scientist with extensive training in microbiology and immunology, I was never able to get away from the recurring pattern of order and design in the simplest of all organisms². This truth became more evident the further one delved into the molecular and biochemical processes of microbes; the great economy of structure combined with a wealth of function. The ability of pathogens to circumvent the human immune system causing disease and mankind’s attempt to alleviate it have provided a discovery place for knowledge of living organisms that confirmed for me the evident supernatural design of nature (Romans 1:20). I cannot study the complexity of the human body and the interdependence of its many systems without agreeing with the Psalmist that “we are fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:14).

Evolutionary thought is rarely, if ever, presented with the exposure of its underlying philosophy- materialism, a form of naturalism that believes all things can be reduced to matter. How unfair this is to both persons lacking faith and to persons of faith. Many Christian scientists have accepted the theory of evolution as fact, as they were taught, without serious evaluation of the guiding philosophy underlying its assumptions. Thorough discussion of the problems that exist with the theory happen at that same rate of infrequency. Humanism and science cannot address certain questions that have been with us for all time, and furthermore they fail to accept the validity of such inquiry. Science cannot explain human conscience and it sees no need to, since its view of humans is simply the most evolved animal species. Souls are eternal and to discuss this aspect of mankind is to evoke the supernatural which modern day science disallows. It is no wonder then that human culture and society have descended to the depths of depravity evident today. What seems important to me at a “College of the Church” is that these questions be recognized as existent, though they remain outside the discussion in secular institutions of higher learning. Additionally, at such an institution as Lenoir-Rhyne College, these questions should be given consideration in the intellectual environment of our lecture halls. This does not mean indoctrination. It would not mean dismissing or demeaning various theories, but rather would put them within a context of wholeness and honest critique. It would mean that we would not contribute, by absence of voice, to the prevailing invalidity of such discussions as nonintellectual. I would venture Benne’s claim that the absence of a recognized intellectual component of the Christian faith³ prevents these discussions between most scientists who are persons of faith- even among themselves. If one is not true to himself or herself, how can they be true to their students?

Is the mission of Lenoir-Rhyne College truly “the development of the whole person”? ⁴ If so, then we must accept the challenge of restoring the intellectual aspect of the Christian faith. Where better to start than with the simple suggestion Robert Benne makes in his book Quality with Soul that “faculty should be assessed as whole persons if they are to be expected to teach whole students.” ⁵

1. Robert L. Spuller, contract letter of Rebecca C. Tart, August 1998.

2. Rebecca Creech Tart, Determination of the Mechanism of Streptococcus defectivus Adherence in Subacute Bacterial Endocarditis (Winston-Salem, NC, WFU, 1993), p. iii

3. Robert Benne, Quality with Soul (Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2001), p. 37.

4. 2001-2202 General Catalog (Hickory, NC, Lenoir-Rhyne College, 2001), p. 6.

5. Robert Benne, Quality with Soul, p.192.