Christian higher education, culture warring, and pursuing pluralism
My scattered thoughts on a thoughtful critique
Over the past week I’ve been highlighting selections from Uneasy Citizenship on The Website Formerly Known as Twitter. In preparing to share from my chapter on the importance of Christians investing in and supporting institutions as a bulwark against increasing cultural pressures, I was reminded of an exchange I had with Alan Noble nearly four years ago.
At the time, my friend (and former George Fox University classmate) Jeff Bilbro had shared he had been let go from his teaching position at Spring Arbor University, another casualty of budget cuts hitting Christian higher education.1 Alan responded to Jeff’s announcement with sadness and frustration, culminating with a call for Christians to support the kinds of institutions where thoughtful Christian scholars (like Jeff) could continue their work of discipling young Christian men and women to read, write, and think in a distinctly Christian way:
At this point I had been developing the outline and framework for what eventually became Uneasy Citizenship, and I was feeling convicted to include a chapter on building Christian institutions. My (brief) exchange with Alan simply affirmed what I had been thinking.
I referenced Alan’s thoughts from 2020 as a way of framing the purpose of Chapter 7, which I excerpted as follows:
I quickly received thoughtful but firm pushback from David Congdon, an editor at the University Press of Kansas and author of Who Is a True Christian? David argued that Christian universities are almost certainly incapable of abandoning culture warring as a mindset, given their understanding of Christianity as an exclusivist faith — that is, the belief that some faith traditions are heretical and even damnable. Here is his response, in full:
David’s point is important, and something I address elsewhere in chapters six and seven of Uneasy Citizenship. For now, here are my thoughts on David’s comments:
David and I probably have different understandings of what “culture warring” is. For me, culture warring is not simply holding to a particular worldview or faith tradition; under this definition, we would all be culture warriors. Rather, culture warring intentionally exacerbates tensions at the intersection of people’s deeply held convictions, primarily for the purpose of partisan political gains.
Is it culture warring to believe that some policies concerning, say, abortion or religious freedom are better than others, and then voting in line with those beliefs? I don’t think so. Rather, I’d suggest culture warring involves using these issues to advance a purely partisan platform while downplaying other issues or ignoring them altogether.2
It is possible (and desirable) for Christians to affirm the truth of their faith while refusing to engage in the kind of culture warring so prevalent in the recent American political ecosystem. I believe Christianity is an exclusivist faith — from Jesus calling himself “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6) to Peter preaching salvation through Christ alone (Acts 4:12) to Paul acknowledging Jesus as the sole mediator between God and humanity (1 Timothy 2:5), it is difficult for me to understand Christianity as treating other religious traditions as equally valid and true.
At the same time, the exclusivity of Christianity as the source of truth does not require an anti-pluralist posture in the public square. A key element of living in diverse and complex societies is acknowledging that our neighbors may believe different things than we do — about politics and economics and art and other things, including questions of metaphysical importance, or what the Westminster Shorter Catechism calls “the chief end of man.” Christians can—indeed, I argue, we should—share the gospel with the world while simultaneously respecting people’s consciences and free will, as they are made in the image of God.
Simply put, Christians can endorse pluralism in governance and the public square while holding an exclusivist interpretation of the Christian faith.
Christian institutions of higher education can “embrace pluralism as a social good” and hold to an exclusivist understanding of faith. Suggesting they must do otherwise—in essence, abandoning any claims of religious exclusivity in order to positively contribute to a pluralist society—seems to me to adopt a sort of moral relativism inconsistent with many religious and philosophical belief systems. Inclusivity is not a synonym for pluralism.
Universities like mine adopt a clear statement of faith for faculty and staff, expecting employees to “be on the same page” when it comes to advancing the distinctly Christian mission of our institution. At the same time, these universities can (and do!) work with organizations to promote and strengthen pluralism in our communities. One such organization is Neighborly Faith, which has frequently partnered with universities in the CCCU (including mine) to encourage evangelical college students to build relationships with their Muslim neighbors.
As I write in my book, it behooves Christians to approach politics and culture with humility, consistency, and support for pluralism. In an age of increasingly toxic social polarization, this sort of posture toward political engagement can confound and upset the world’s expectations. This doesn’t mean we don’t believe the essentials of the faith as expressed through the Nicene Creed; it means we do believe them, and are situating our relationship to the world accordingly.
Soon after, Jeff landed an excellent position at Grove City College, one of the premier Christian liberal arts colleges in the country. Thank goodness.
I’m not especially happy with this definition, but as these thoughts are scattered and incomplete, I’m going with it for now.
You write, "Christian institutions of higher education can 'embrace pluralism as a social good' and hold to an exclusivist understanding of faith." But doesn't a Christian in the very nature of the term reject pluralism by making exclusive faith claims? It doesn't seem like we can section these two things off. If Christ is truly Lord, how can we say pluralism in the public square is good while claiming every aspect of life must be brought under Christ's authority? As Abraham Kuyper says, "There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, Mine!"
The best social good, then, would be specific and singular, with Christianity taking over the entire world "as the waters cover the seas" (Hab 2:14). Thanks for the post, and I'm interested in your thoughts!