Burtchaell’s book, The Dying of the Light: The Disengagement of Colleges & Universities from their Christian Churches, was widely read and discussed by those on the campuses of church-founded colleges. “Wistful concern” did indeed capture rather well the feeling of melancholy, regret, and resignation that many felt when they reflected on the drift apart of the colleges of their denomination and the founding church. Burtchaell’s encyclopedic work included chapters for the Presbyterians and each of four other denominations, plus the Catholics and Evangelicals.
How authentic and enduring is the tie between the Presbyterian colleges and the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)? Does it really matter? Is “wistful concern” all that remains of the once-strong connection between our colleges and the church that gave them birth?
In my sixteenth year as president of a small Presbyterian college, I have been keenly interested in these questions. At my first meeting of the Association of Presbyterian Colleges and Universities (APCU) in 1994, my fellow presidents weren’t feeling wistful, they were feeling despondent. The latest budget cuts by the church were threatening financial support from the PC(USA) for the work of the APCU, and there was strong talk of the latter separating from the former.
In the years that followed, that separation did occur, as the APCU incorporated as a separate legal entity, and the General Assembly eliminated the Higher Education Program Area. Although clearly not auspicious developments, the consequences of these moves have truly not, however, been dire. Indeed, APCU Executive Director Gary Luhr, today has his office in the Presbyterian Center in Louisville and the APCU Board of Directors holds one of its meetings in the Center each year, usually welcoming one or more PC(USA) leaders to the table for conversation.
But more significant, I would suggest, than these changes in organizational ties and financial support is the question of evidence that Presbyterian colleges and their founding church might be coming to recognize the value each can provide for the other.
There are signs, I believe. These have emerged as some of the colleges have made intentional moves toward the authenticity that Burtchaell referenced in his book, seeking to cultivate on their campuses a consensus about the relationship between faith and learning. At Maryville College, for example, a Faith and Learning Committee hammered out a formal statement that was endorsed by both the faculty and Board of Directors. The APCU colleges have seen, too, in recent years church leaders emerge who are outspoken champions of Presbyterian higher education. Executive Director of the General Assembly Council, Linda Valentine, is an excellent example. In good faith efforts to establish unambiguous mutual expectations, colleges and church bodies have worked out new covenants, as have the APCU and the General Assembly Council. It will require actions of these sorts, on the campuses and from church leaders, to move us well beyond “wistful concern” to hopeful connection and productive collaboration.
But are there good reasons to invest energy and resources in such efforts? Does it really matter, in this first decade of the 21st century, that the colleges have tended to go their own way and that the church lays cautious claim to its colleges? And does it matter that there are leaders of both the colleges and the church who have taken up the task of restoring ties between the two? I think there are quite good reasons.
It matters, first, to students. Young men and women who study at a college where the church-college relationship is strong and clear and communicated to students, where the campus ethos and curriculum reflect commitment to the tenets of Christianity, are far more likely to develop not only intellectually, but spiritually as well during their college years. On such campuses there will be ample opportunity for an examination of one’s faith, for worship, and for service in imitation of Christ. Young men and women shaped in such an environment are better able, I would submit, to live richer, fuller, more productive lives.
It matters also to the church. In the earlier part of the 20th century, on almost every campus of every denominational college, there was a large cohort of pre-ministerial students. On some campuses we are seeing new interest in the calling to ministry. Surely the seriously church-related colleges are ideally suited to produce a new generation of leaders for the church. It is vital that they continue to see this as an important component of their mission, and that the church recognize the value their colleges can bring as prime sources of new church leadership.
It matters certainly to the colleges. A church that recognizes the value of its colleges for its students and for church leadership will look for ways to encourage denominational students to attend those colleges. This kind of quasi-recruitment amplifies the efforts of admissions offices and brings to the campus students who fit and thrive there. It also reinforces for the colleges the encouraging sense their sponsoring church values them.
Finally, it matters to society. Students prepared both spiritually and intellectually to be good citizens and able, ethical leaders are surely a gift to society. The values likely to be taken away from their educational experience equip them to make a difference in the world — and to want to do just that.
The signs that there are Presbyterian colleges and church leaders getting beyond the “wistful concern” described by Burtchaell a decade ago are, I believe, recognizable and hopeful. The key to further strengthening of church-college ties is a growing recognition that each holds great value for the other. Let us pray for that growing recognition.
Gerald W. Gibson is president of Maryville College in Maryville, Tenn.
