following
a discussion group and the reading of Robert Benne’s Quality with
Soul: How Six Premier Colleges and Universities Keep Faith with Their Religious
Traditions (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; 2001).
May,
A.D. 2002
I
have not read the statement, but I have heard that St. Irenaeus wrote,
regarding his role and responsibility as a bishop, “I am the Church.”
There is a sense in which, on this campus, I am the Church’s
relationship to the college.[1]
I was thankful and flattered, indeed, a few weeks ago when a few reports such
as this were related to me: A SACS representative would ask, “Tell us about the
college’s Church relationship.” And the respondent would reply, “Oh, we have a
very active and visible campus pastor!” Yes, I am thankful for the intended
compliment. However, in my view, the Church-college relationship should be much
deeper and more pervasive than that; in fact, currently (gratias Deo), it is.
To borrow from Benne’s
concepts and terms… The vision of the college’s relationship to the
Church it is my responsibility to maintain at – or if need be, ratchet-up to –
a rather high level. The human tendency, due to sin, is to drift away from God.
Likewise, the tendency of the academy, unless it is constantly attended to, is
to drift away from God, the Gospel and the Church. My visible presence, public
speaking, and even personal-pastoral conversation must remind the people of
this academy that we are a community of the Church – with its focus on
incarnation, prayer, word and sacrament, God “deep in the flesh” of every
aspect of life: learning (sciences and humanities), “student life,” etc. Along
with holding high this vision, I must seek every effort to encourage and shape
an ethos on campus that holds high, supports and enhances the vision.
This is done by maintaining high quality among the “programs” and ministries
that are already in place, e.g., Wednesday Chapel; religious organizations;
Bible studies; engagement (conversations, etc.) with faculty, staff, and
students; personal visibility; publicly interpreting events on campus in
accordance with the Gospel (i.e., movement of the Holy Spirit). Thus I endeavor
to encourage Christians on campus (persons, Benne’s third category) to
recognize and realize their own vocations on campus, that they are
engaged in ministry in their work on this campus; and encourage that they
recognize and describe their work as such.
Yet the tasks of holding
high the vision, encouraging and enriching the ethos, and insuring a critical
mass of persons, certainly does not reside in the pastor alone, nor even
fundamentally. Leaders in the ministry, i.e., the college community, especially
the president, academic dean, a critical mass of the board of trustees; and
only to a slightly-lesser-extent, other responsible leaders, must daily
remember the vision, seek to enhance the ethos, encourage the persons, and
maintain a critical mass of persons (i.e., be attentive to this in hiring
practices).
My own vision (theological
and otherwise) for pursuing these tasks falls squarely in the “2nd
article of the Creed” motif. The way of the “1st article,” “two
kingdoms” theory – which claims, e.g., that we praise God in studying science
even if we never mention God, since God created it all – in my view falls
woefully short. God became incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth, a human being in the
midst of human things, in a human world, in human history; therefore,
everything human and related thereto could, and should (at a college of the
Church) be related to God (in Christ). Faith and learning (in every department)
should be integrated. Conversation on this topic should be constant, first
among faculty-staff-administrators, and among students. Faculty, staff, and
administrators should be offered (and to some extent, required to attend)
opportunities to help them converse theologically and seek how to relate the
faith to their areas of work.
Mine is a rather
far-to-one-side, “orthodox” (to use Benne’s schema) kind of view. So, what if we
hire some faculty who are more comfortable with the “1st article”
approach? Fine, if they are at least within the field of vision. And if
that is the case, the pastor should take-up the slack, continuing to emphasize
the “2nd article” Truth, which hopefully all (or, overwhelmingly
most) on campus will recognize as Truth: that God was in Christ, reconciling
the world to himself, and that reconciling work continues among us on this
campus today – through prayer, sacraments, Bible study, Christian fellowship,
pastoral care – in a word, through Christ’s continual incarnation among
the people at this college of the Church.
[1] Ah! But, on campus, am I the college’s relationship to the Church? That may be a different question. It could be that the college president embodies and ensures the relationship from that angle; or, from both angles! And from off-campus, would, e.g., pastors of the Synod, see the pastor as the embodiment “both ways”? This discussion could be interesting.