We Should Be Concerned With Losing Our Distinctive Identity—But Not Too Much

I had the privilege of attending Notre Dame as a graduate student in the early 1990s and studying with historian George Marsden.  George was working on his seminal book at the time, The Soul of the American University, and he would share rough drafts with his graduate students for us to review.  This was kind of like eating at a five-star restaurant and being invited to tour the kitchen to see the meals being cooked.  The “secularization of the academy” was much discussed at the time.  Along with George’s book, Catholic historian James Burtchaell’s The Dying of the Light was published at roughly the same time.

This nagging fear of inevitable secularization, buttressed as it is by prominent examples throughout American history, stills pervades the culture of evangelical higher education.  I was reminded of that last week at a panel session for parents of prospective students, when one parent asked me what my university was doing to stand its ground in the face of the tides of secularization.  I am reminded too of my fellow Notre Dame graduate student Michael Hamilton’s lament when he was writing the history of Wheaton College, that some evangelicals seemingly view any change as inevitably leading to secularization.

Those of us who make our living as Christian college leaders like to take a more positive view of the situation.  After all, we’re passionate about ramping up academic quality through faculty hiring, increased support for faculty scholarship, recruiting better students, etc.  And we can cite contemporary examples of schools such as Pepperdine and Baylor that have strengthened their Christian identity in recent years.

Yet as a historian, I am keenly aware that well-intentioned efforts can have unexpected consequences, and that we don’t control the long-term effects of our actions.  The leaders of Dartmouth or Oberlin never intended for their institutions to lose their distinctive Christian identity, and we may not be any wiser than they were.

In sum, then, I do believe that evangelicals in higher education should be concerned with losing our distinctive Christian identity.  We need to balance our ambition for positive change with a sense of humility and caution learned through the lessons of history and the laws of unintended consequences.  At the same time, we must not let examples of changes gone bad keep us from proposing visionary plans ourselves.  In recent months, an excessive fear of secularization at a prominent Christian university has created significant turnover of the university’s leadership and damaged the lives and careers of many sincerely Christian educators.

So how do we avoid secularization in our quest for positive change and growth?  Here are a few modest and rather unoriginal suggestions.  First, we need a clearly-articulated statement of our core beliefs and values.  Especially at a non-denominational university such as mine, it’s crucial that we do the difficult work of formulating a simple, clear statement of theological convictions which members of the community can understand and affirm, and do so without a wink and a nod.

Second, there is a small and crucial group of individuals which universities overlook at their peril:  the membership committee of the Board of Trustees.  Ultimately, at most of our universities, it’s the Board of Trustees that sets the vision of the university and that will sustain the vision, primarily through the hiring of the president.  So who sits on that board will ultimately determine the university’s direction, perhaps not in the short term but definitely in the long term.  Thus, the membership committee, which is typically elected by the board itself, performs the key function of the university by seeking out and vetting future board members.  Those who want to maintain a university’s Christian identity must pay close attention to this committee.

Finally, to paraphrase Bill Clinton, “it’s the faculty, stupid.”  Professors are the heart and soul of a university.  They will outlast students and probably most administrators.  Their sincere support can make an initiative successful, and their cynicism—either overt or covert—can doom any well-intentioned vision statement.  If we want to remain distinctively Christian, therefore, we must be clear in our hiring expectations and scrutinize candidates carefully.  “When in doubt, don’t hire” is an old and reliable principle.  If we are vigilant in hiring professors who share the institution’s core beliefs and values, then we can confidently give those whom we hire the freedom to do their jobs in a way that affirms the mission of the institution.

Of course, as an administrator, I’m focusing on structural and procedural matters.  Beyond that, there’s the need to create a campus ethos that reflects a distinctively Christian identity in the classroom, in the dormitory, on the athletic field, and elsewhere.  While that’s important, I would argue that such a Christian ethos, no matter how strong, will fade in time if the Christian commitment of the faculty and board is not maintained.  And so I end up back in the less glamorous areas of faculty hiring and board membership.

Educators often describe education as risky.  Since we’re forming persons, not making widgets, there is an inherent risk to the educational process.  We can’t guarantee the outcome.

Perhaps there’s an inherent risk to growing universities as well, which are, after all, comprised of those same messy, unpredictable persons.  We seek to clarify boundaries, hire well, and cast our vision of the future, but ultimately we must trust that God will bless—and sustain for future generations—our efforts to build academically excellent and distinctively Christian institutions.

Rick Ostrander, Provost, Cornerstone University