Every year in that issue, a large number of Presbyterian colleges and universities try to pass themselves off as being “church-related.” But anyone who knows those campuses knows the reality is quite different. A large number of professors are indifferent — if not hostile — to the Christian faith; most students never study the Bible in class, and if a religion course is required, it is usually a world religions or ethics course which is one item on a menu of choices. Of course, chapel is not required — it hasn’t been for years. But beyond that, what was once the chapel is now a “worship space,” which can be readily converted to accommodate any number of faiths, with Christian services being infrequent and (to say the very least) sparsely attended. If public prayers are said at all, it is only at graduation, and Jesus’ name is never mentioned. There may be an honor code, but its rules are Byzantine, its punishments light and its power nominal. The moral imperative on campus is not the practice of integrity but the celebration of diversity.
None of this is news. James T. Burtchaell (The Dying of the Light: The Disengagement of Colleges and Universities from their Christian Churches), George M. Marsden (The Soul of the American University: From Protestant Establishment to Established Nonbelief) and numerous others have chronicled the radical and relatively rapid secularization of higher education in America. And they have shown that most Presbyterian church-related institutions have been swept along with all the rest.
If you think I exaggerate, or if you think your alma mater is the exception to the rule, take this test. Look at how the institution describes itself when it isn’t trying to impress the readers of The Outlook or win Presbyterian donors or attract church-related high-school students. Go look at how it describes itself, say, in an advertisement for a new professor in The Chronicle of Higher Education. Is the Christian commitment of the institution mentioned there? Or go to the institution’s Web site. How visible is the church-relationship or the life of faith? Is the academic program touted because it helps students use their minds and lives to the glory of God? Or because it “empowers” them to “assume positions of leadership in a fast-paced, ever-changing, increasingly diverse, information-driven, global economy”? (Orwell would despise the “Newspeak.”) Thumb through the promotional literature: which gets more play — the institution’s church-relatedness or its most recent ranking in U.S. News and World Report?
I used to think — in cynicism and despair perhaps — that the puff pieces in the higher education issue really didn’t matter that much. After all, it was a chance for each school to toot its own horn and get a little free publicity in the bargain. But I pray for the life of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). And it has come to me that a commitment to loving God with our minds — and with it a commitment to Christian higher education — has always been part of that life. If we are to have that life anew, if we are to fill our pulpits and pews, if we are to be the church, we must honor that commitment — and not the mere illusion thereof.
So I challenge the Presbyterian colleges and universities: this year, don’t send The Outlook your canned puffery. Instead answer three questions: what are you doing to insure that (1) your faculty are committed to Christian higher education, (2) your students can read the Bible reasonably well, and (3) the campus honors integrity?
And now let me anticipate the Orwellian answers.
First, please don’t tell us that “all new faculty are made aware of, and asked whether they are sympathetic to, the Christian heritage and mission of the institution.” This means nothing. Any newly minted, job-desperate Ph.D. will say this. And such lip-born expressions of awareness and sympathy tell us nothing about whether faith informs this professor’s teaching and learning.
Second, please don’t say, “the study of other faith traditions helps students appreciate their own.” This might be true, if students knew their own faith traditions. But they don’t. Biblical and theological illiteracy is the norm; and too often the result of a comparative religion course is a superficial acquaintance with all traditions and an appreciation of none.
Finally, don’t say, “Our college has had an honor code for x years.” Fine, but is it working now, or is it just window-dressing? Given the prevalence of cheating, a working honor code is both a high calling and a daunting challenge. In short, here’s the question: are you really a college of the faith, or are you church-related in name only?
The institution where I teach — Presbyterian College in Clinton, S.C. — has nothing if not a church-related name. And for many years it has served us well: by and large we have withstood the tides of secularization. This year, however, we’re being swept away with a vengeance. The faculty has already voted to abandon the requirement that all students take courses in both Old and New Testament (see cover story in this issue). The board of trustees has proposed a “modification” to the by-law that requires faculty members to belong to a Christian church. And the administration wants to strip students of much of their control of the honor system. This last not because the students acted irresponsibly, but because they took integrity seriously, insisting that cheating be punished as their honor code required. None of this is likely to make it into this year’s higher education Issue.
The Religion-Philosophy Department has prepared a document explaining our opposition to the elimination of the Bible requirement and our concerns about how it was done. No doubt the college won’t advertise that in The Outlook either. Orwell would not have been surprised. .
Richard L. Baker Jr. is a professor of philosophy at Presbyterian College, Clinton, S.C
Send your comment on this guest viewpoint to The Outlook.
Please give your full name, hometown and state.
