I have the joy and privilege of serving as the chief academic officer at Union University, which is a Baptist institution. Some time ago I was at a gathering of academic leaders from at least nominally Christian colleges and we had an interesting conversation about statements of faith for faculty and other leaders.
One very seasoned leader said that the problem with requiring signed statements of faith is two-fold: the people who will sign them and the people who will sign them. All of us looked confused until he explained.
The first group will sign the statement and really believe every bit of its contents, but then they use it as a means to club their colleagues to death, undermining any sense of community that exists. They proof-text every jot and tittle of campus life against their own interpretations of the statement and constantly hound anyone who crosses their viewpoints.
The second group will sign the statement not because they agree with it but rather because they will sign anything in order to get a job. According to their views, the interpretation of the statement lies in the eyes of the interpreter and they can sign freely, knowing that they will assign the meaning of the items themselves in whatever way makes them comfortable. Both groups end up practicing a kind of hermeneutical hegemony that ends up being destructive.
The leader’s point was a good one: using a sheet of paper alone to guard institutional identity is a weak means of defense. It takes more than a signature to ensure that faculty members and other leaders are dedicated to the mission of the institution.
An institution tends to lose its mission one hire at a time: first it hires nice persons who pretty much agree with the mission, then those nice persons become leaders who hire people with shiny doctoral alma maters who barely agree with the mission, and then those people hire folks who openly disagree with the mission and view it as an impediment to “real” education. The preservation of institutional mission takes more than a statement of faith; it takes a careful, fulsome cultivation of a community of faith.
November 7th, 2010 | 2:30 am | #1
“One very seasoned leader said that the problem with requiring signed statements of faith is two-fold: the people who will sign them and the people who will sign them.”
Lame.
There are more than the two described groups who sign Statements of Faith. Further, I think the more frequent and more dangerous occurrence is the second group.
Third, this post would be far more enhanced if specific examples were mentioned and provided.
Fourth, it looks to commit the moral equivalence fallacy. Like equating an Islamic suicide bomber with an Israeli policeman defending a checkpoint. Simply ludicrous.
November 7th, 2010 | 1:01 pm | #2
Really this is the only choice when it comes to statements of faith — a literalistic legalism and a prevaricating relativism?? Wow. That sure seems like a false choice to me, not to mention cowardly, and a counsel of despair.
Isn’t this at least somewhat content based? What if, for example, the institution’s SoF was the Apostle’s Creed? Would the above “effect” still hold? What about the earliest confession “Jesus is Lord”?
I grow weary of folks who insist that ~any~ attempt to describe or put boundaries markers around orthodoxy somehow forces people to become legalists or liars. Doesn’t Neuhaus’ law pertain here: “where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will sooner or later be proscribed”?
November 7th, 2010 | 3:53 pm | #3
Uh… 1. The author of this article is not out to say those are the only two types of people who sign statements. The punchline of a joke should never be long or exhaustive. Sheesh, get a grip. A third category would be people who signed it because they were drunk. Not common, but theoretically possible.
And, of course, the people who sign the statement and choose to follow it decently without zealotry. But, those people aren’t one of the two problems big enough to be part of the punchline.
Secondly: the author is not saying that we should let go of any idea of a confessional stance. He’s saying that paper alone does not do much without some regulation, much in the same way that making good grades in class is good, but won’t get you a Ph.D. unless you do a doctoral thesis also.
In other words, there must be a personal level of interaction in order to keep a confessional stance from becoming a problem, just as professors need to see a thesis and interact personally before conferring the title of “Doctor.”
November 7th, 2010 | 5:34 pm | #4
Given that I know a little bit about CCCU institutions, especially in TN, I think I might know who made the statement.
The conclusion about it taking more than a signature is on the right track regardless of the two extreme options given in the example.
I also take some issue with the community of faith claim at the end of the blog because there is the tendency to turn the university into the church. I have seen this all too often, and I prefer not to have the employer that pays my salary also attempt to be my church since the conflict of interest usually means I lose.
Instead, I would say it takes a theological vision that emerges from the specific tradition of the university in conversation with the larger Christian tradition. More than that though, it takes administrators who actively seek to live out that vision rather than becoming mired in statistics, outcome goals, and marketing principles.
Seriously, I lament what appears to be the takeover of the university by a combination of marketing (student as consumer) and education driven forces. By the latter, I mean the drive to quantify everything because “it must be measurable.” Too often administrators only care about these goals: pleasing the consumer on the hand and pleasing the accreditation agency on the other hand.
The theological vision, if there is one, gets lost; and any theological statements, even though signed, rarely impact that actual life of the institution except when the faculty member is perceived to be in conflict with it. And even here, many times it comes down to what the student as consumer (who is not a theologian) has to say.
The goals of institutional growth are not always in line with the goals of maintaining a vigorous theological vision that is threaded throughout the university. Administrators who sell their souls to the market and educational gods ought to recognize what they are doing as being just as harmful as any theological deviation from a statement of faith.
November 7th, 2010 | 5:56 pm | #5
There seems to be another good-faith category: people who sign the statement of faith because they honestly believe in it, but who are then told by their employers that they can’t really mean it. A good example would be Joshua Hochschild, who got fired at Wheaton after he became a Catholic, even though he insisted he still believed every part of the statement of faith and could sign it as a Catholic. His supervisors said, no, you can’t really believe it as a Catholic. And out he went.
Actually, I have no problem with a Protestant college having a rule: WE DO NOT HIRE CATHOLICS. It’s the lame “statement of faith” cop-out that is troublesome.
November 8th, 2010 | 5:02 pm | #6
Going off of what Craig Payne said, that is a possible category. However, I think it’s possible to have a better, more clear statement of faith that makes such a situation rather less likely.
For example, Wheaton could have put in something that was more explicitly at odds with Catholic theology (say, that no authority is equal to the Bible’s, or something of that nature). That would have protected what they saw as their institutional identity, without making the administration have to resort to subjective interpretation of its own statement.
I think this can help mitigate the issues with the other problem groups, as well. Some interpretation and discipline will always be needed of course, but a well-written statement of faith can make this much easier.
November 8th, 2010 | 6:11 pm | #7
Can Protestants always in good faith sign the statement of faith of a Protestant school? I’m Anglican, and as many know, Anglicans are all over the place, even ones who are genuine Christians and are over all very conservative. I believe the Nicene Creed is authoritative. I believe the Church speaks prophetically. I also believe that Scripture is the Word of God in a unique way. I believe the Church tells us what the Bible means.
November 8th, 2010 | 10:20 pm | #8
As another Anglican, I disagree with Mr. Payne. Take, for example the statement, “Jesus of Nazareth was a mortal man who most embodied the will of God on Earth.” It is not technically false, but it is phrased in a way so different from how Christians have traditionally expressed the humanity and moral perfection of Christ, that it sets off alarm bells. We’d expect someone who said that would not also confess the Nicene Creed, at least not as the Creed is traditionally understood. So, too, I think Wheaton is allowed to say its evangelical statement of faith cannot be interpreted so as to allow a Roman Catholic to confess it sincerely. That is, the history behind Creeds and statements of faith should be, or at least can be, part of their full and proper meanings.
I attended the 4th Most Catholic College in the country (though we’re still lobbying for a recount). Catholic faculty there did not pledge to a Creed or statement of faith, but to the pastoral and teaching authority of the Church. Considering that new statements of faith cannot have the depth of meaning of the ancient Creeds, I wonder if evangelical schools shouldn’t focus more on “mission statements” than “statements of faith.”
November 9th, 2010 | 8:56 am | #9
Good points being made. I do think if statements of faith were made explicit enough (even considering their history) to exclude Catholics from signing, they would also exclude many Protestants, as has been pointed out.
For example, how about something like “We believe in salvation through faith in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.” It seems a Catholic could sign that with no problems.
But if then it is amended (“Well, what we MEAN by ‘salvation through faith’ is….”) it would get so detailed as to begin intra-Protestant disputes as well.
However, perhaps such detail is necessary to preserve the original character of the institution. In situations such as Wheaton’s, however, it also means you will miss out on some extraordinary scholars.
P.S. Have you ever noticed that, even in explicitly Protestant schools, there tends to be a bit more flexibility in the “medieval” fields? People gravitate to their interests–how many Catholics spend their lives studying Barth, Tillich, and so on, and how many Protestants spend their lives studying the medievals?
November 9th, 2010 | 2:13 pm | #10
Studying the medievals is not so uncommon among Protestants in general, but among evangelical Protestants it is somewhat rare. At most evangelical seminaries, the history of Christianity will probably move from Augustine to Anselm, Aquinas, Ockham and then Luther. Just look at Roger Olson’s Story of Christianity. The Middle Ages gets almost no treatment, and Olson is just flat wrong on a number of historical points.
OK, I’m stepping down from the podium.
As for the main topic, I reiterate my fundamental point that the primary blame must be placed on administrators. Statements of faith are functionally useless unless the theological vision they attempt to articulate is woven into the fabric of the university curriculum. This will invariable require contextualization of the statement of faith within the tradition the university represents as well as fresh articulation of how to continue to transmit the tradition. This all takes time, and when most CCCU schools require profs to teach a 4/4 load, who has the time!
November 10th, 2010 | 3:44 am | #11
Actually, the primary function of the statement of faith is financial. Governing boards use it as a tool to prove to constituencies that the faculty who teach at their institutions support the positions their contributing constituencies espouse. Constituencies will continue to invest—with their children and their donations–in an institution they see as supporting their views. The punishment for failure to abide by the statement of faith is a financial punishment: the offending employee is fired or the constituency withdraws its support from the offending college.
I suspect that if Wheaton College had a large number of major donors who wouldn’t have minded a Roman Catholic as a tenured member of the faculty, Wheaton would have a Roman Catholic tenured member of the faculty. That wasn’t the case and Wheaton doesn’t. If a large number of Wheaton’s major donors believed that dancing on campus should be forbidden, Wheaton wouldn’t have changed her pledge. Here the constituency changed its position and the college followed. Sometimes colleges decide to dump their constituencies, or at least to switch them. That is what happened at Belmont University in Nashville; but Belmont only divorced herself from the Southern Baptist Convention after she felt she had enough financial support from other sources that she could get along without her founders (and many of her faculty and administrations had resented her Baptist association for years, they could hardly wait to be free from that “yoke”). Generally, just follow the money. The colleges’ theological protestations aren’t fraudulent, they’re sincere, but in my experience Christian colleges, like Christians in general, may or may not eagerly seek the Lord’s guidance in prayer and lean upon His understanding, but they always check their bank statements.
Sorry to be the cynic here Gene. Love what y’all at doing a Union, it’s a great place, but in my experience with Christian colleges, which hasn’t been insignificant, I never heard it brought up in a discussion with senior administrators that something might or might not “be of the Lord” (yep, that’s the way we talk for those of you who might not be familiar with our lingo) but “what would the constituency think?” Yep. Ka chink ka chink.
Oh, and Truth Unites, etc. Know what’s lame? You. Kinda. You post a lot. Cool. But you have a name. Use it. It was one of the First Things you got. You were baptized with it (I assume). Jesus will welcome you into Heaven with it (I hope). Gene, me, lots of folks here you can find in the phone book, facebook, etc. Join the club. Stand up and testify. Stop hiding under the pew and making squirrelly noises, it’s not good for your character. I’m not so worried about you, Orthodoxdj. You’re an Anglican; Anglicans have a tradition of hiding under the pew and making squirrelly noises, to psalm tones—the William Crotch, perhaps?
November 10th, 2010 | 12:43 pm | #12
Mike Linton,
The argument being made is what’s important. Not the name.
Thanks.
November 10th, 2010 | 12:45 pm | #13
Dale Coulter: “As for the main topic, I reiterate my fundamental point that the primary blame must be placed on administrators.”
Agreed.
November 10th, 2010 | 1:25 pm | #14
@ Mike Linton,
You are all too right about the financial function. I was thinking more idealized thoughts when I said functionally useless, as in, serve no real theological purpose, but financial purpose. . . of course. Your post created one of those I-could-not-see-the-forest-for-the-trees moments for me. Maybe it’s not cynicism, just realpolitik.
November 10th, 2010 | 1:55 pm | #15
Dale Coulter: “As for the main topic, I reiterate my fundamental point that the primary blame must be placed on administrators.”
and
“You are all too right about the financial function.”
And who are the folks who are concerned and consumed by the financial function? Why, it’s the administrators.
November 10th, 2010 | 1:56 pm | #16
Dale Coulter: “As for the main topic, I reiterate my fundamental point that the primary blame must be placed on administrators.”
and
“You are all too right about the financial function.”
And who are the folks who are concerned and consumed by the financial function? Why, it’s the administrators.
November 15th, 2010 | 11:11 pm | #17
Dear Truth Unites, etc., etc. No, it’s always the Name. Even chemists put their names to their lab reports. You can’t tell the dancer from the dance, they are one in the same (that’s why Jesus had to rise from the dead; if he didn’t he’d just be an argument, like Joseph Smith or L Ron Hubbard, or I guess Truth Unites, etc., etc.). Besides, this is the Evangelical ghetto on the First Things blog. When in Rome do as the Romans do. When we testify in church, which we do, we stand up and do it, “This is what the Lord has done for me. . . ” So stand up (we even have a hymn we sing about that kind of thing, maybe you know it: “Stand up! Stand up for . . . “). Use your name. Become a friend. Don’t whimper under the pew. In the meantime we’ll just have to think of you as “Truth is very, very shy and divides a bit sheepishly”
And Dale: Thanks for you kind words, but I have to take back what I wrote; I really think it’s all about the money. If you sign the institution’s pledge the benefits are financial: a job, health insurance, an office, stuff like that. The punishments for breaking the pledge are also financial: no job, no health benefits, no office, etc. I don’t know any institutions where the administrators believe that failure to sign a pledge is a sign of wickedness or where breaking a pledge bars you from communion with the faithful–you just have to go someplace else to work.
Anyway, I very rarely see the forests, it’s miraculous when I occasionally do; I’m usually way too busy being on my hands and knees pawing through the grass to see the big picture–well, that’s acceptable since I’m a Calvinist, worms belong at that level——-or lower, right?
November 19th, 2010 | 6:22 am | #18
[...] Gene Fant talks University Statements of Faith. [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact