The Christian College: Its Tasks and Opportunities
By LARS I. GRANBERG*
From: JASA 20 (December 1968): 120-122.
Our bent as a nation is toward the immediate and the
"practical." Education
is seen by many simply as job training. Trained technicians keep our
highly technological
society in motion. But any society soon becomes obsolete if its
educational institutions
produce only technicians. The church, the community, the nation, and
the developing
community of nations demand leadership. They demand people sensitive
to shortcomings,
capable of dreaming big dreams (for "where there is no vision, the people
perish"), and possessed of the courage, dedication, and self-sacrifice to
see to it these dreams become reality.
Such leadership for church and world calls for people who can rise
above the moment,
people who can rise above their specific task, people whose moral perspectives
rise above cultural mores. It is precisely the goal of the liberal arts to help
students develop these qualities. Not skills but qualities of person
are the goals
of the liberal arts.
A liberal arts program differs radically from any program which aims
at a specific
vocational goal. The desired fruit of a liberal education is a person
who thinks
logically, who expresses himself with grace arid precision in his
speech and his
writing, who discriminates the beautiful from the ugly and the fresh
and creative
from the banal.
The liberal arts do not assume these processes develop in a vacuum,
but that they
require information, exercise, and norms: the record of the successes and
the failures, the wisdom and the foolishness, the nobility and the knavery, the
beauty and the ugliness of mankind-the record of man's efforts to come to terms
with the meaning of his life and to form a just and productive
society. The student
of the liberal arts must be taught to find a vantage point from which
he can apply
historical and mural norms both to his society and to his times.
It is the central place of norms in responsible living that makes
clear the pivotal
contribution of the liberal arts college committed to the Christian faith. The
Christian faith gives liberal education a view of God, man, nature,
and history.
Christianity provides the liberal arts with an ultimate norm, a living example
of man at his best, a motive and a pervasive sense of vocation which can make
plowing as sacred as preaching and the mason serving God as completely as the
missionary.
To some this will sound visionary and impractical. Not so. It is, in fact, the
most practical approach to education. Northwestern is not indifferent
to training
in marketable skills. But as a liberal arts college it recognizes with the wise
of all ages that man is far more than one who works, and that he
needs more than
facts and skills even to do well at his work.
"Probably the most important task of any college is to discover
able teachers
in sufficient number
As the Danforth study (Church Sponsored Higher Education) points out, "If a college intends o he a Christian community and
to conduct its whrk within a Christian context, the appointment of
faculty members
who are sympathetic with this purpose and can make a contribution to
such a community
is an important factor in [faculty] selection."
To be a college in any meaningful sense means we have as teachers those who are
learned in an academic discipline, those whose professional training
is recognized
as adequate for this task by the academic community. To be a Christian college
means that we must search for competently trained people who share
with us a commitment
to the Lordship of Christ over all human life and endeavor and to the authority
of Holy Scripture. To find enough of such people is, at best, a
difficult undertaking.
The Danforth study quotes a faculty member from one of our Reformed
Church colleges
on this score:
"There is a particular breed of teacher who will want to make sacrifices
to teach in such an institution. They are the teachers who want to teach first
and publish second if at all; teachers who see their role as
comprehending, synthesizing,
communicating the elements of their discipline rather than adding
bits and pieces
to it. These are also teachers who themselves hold to a religious philosophy of
life. The basic problem facing religion in higher education today is
keeping these
people in the small, church-related colleges. The opportunities for
greater financial
reward, wider community recognition, and a better situation for
personal intellectual
development in the universities are making these teachers,
particularly the younger
ones, more acutely aware of their sacrifice. (p. 162f., italics
mine.)"
Let it he clearly understood that what is needed is not so much a
matter of particular
labels or specialties as one of attitude. What we need at every point
in our curriculum
are people with the liberal arts spirit, people who are interested in
the intellectual
foundations of their disciplines. For this is the work of an educated roan. It
is also the realm of common discourse between specialties. C, P. Snow, in his
book The Two Cultures, speaks of one culture dominated by the scientific mode
of discourse, the other by the humanistic mode of discourse. Where this is the
case it is because the educative process has been reduced to
specialist training-a
process guaranteed to fragment our culture. This is what we exist to
prevent.
Whatever else it does, a college should help its students to develop personal
standards of excellence. They must be helped to grasp the difference
between excellence
and mediocrity in music, art, and literature. They must be able to
recognize when
they are writing poorly or reasoning speciously. The entire campus
climate contributes
to this, hence the need for an augmented lecture and artist series and for more
opportunities for serious conversation between faculty and students.
But the principal
instrument is the curriculum and a sound longrange plan for academic
development.
Worship must be at the center of our lives here, for we are a
Christian community
dedicated to learning and to teaching. We are the expression of the mission of
the Church in higher education. Since the besetting sin of the
academic community
is the gnostic arrogance that so easily arises from having special
knowledge and
a special vocabulary that easily awes the non-specialist, we need to assemble
for worship. For then our perspective can be restored. We are helped
to remember
that as our knowledge grows so does mystery.
Once again I beg your indulgence as I mount my soap box. The
principal spiritual
note on the campus is not skepticism. It is indifference-not a
hostile, negative
indifference but a complacent, rather positively toned indifference. In effect,
"I'm for it, but so what? Isn't everybody?" Most of our young people
do not know what it is like not to know Jesus Christ. They do not know what it
is like to lack the support and fellowship of the Christian
community. The result
is a kind of bland, detached consent to the Christian faith -"neither hot
nor cold." There is drifting along as "God's
grandchildren," banking
on a godly heritage and certain cultural practices to see them through.
To be sure, many among our students are devoted to Christ. Some, no doubt, are
doubtful. A few may be skeptical. We must be concerned with each of
these groups
and those in between. Our task is, first, to present to our students an adult
version of the Christian faith. This must come from the Department of Religion
-which must be among the most academically challenging on our campus-from the
chapel platform and from the Christian maturity that radiates from our faculty
as they set about to teach well in their field of proficiency.
Our second task is to create a climate in which the young person is helped to
move his faith from a merecultural pattern to a personal commitment. Like the
Psalmist, the student must he encouraged to "inquire in His temple,"
i.e., to face his questions, raise them openly and discuss them freely. Where
is there a better place to do this than in the Christian academic
community?
Finally, no student should hear the attacks on the Christian faith
for the first
time when he reaches graduate school, the business world, or the
military service.
This is bewildering and, too often, embittering. The feeling arises that one's
church and Christian college were afraid of these criticisms or had no answers
that
could stand scrutiny. God is not insecure. Neither should those who
consider themselves
his children be insecure. He has promised that his word shall
withstand all onslaughts.
As a Christian college, then, we must listen to criticisms of our
faith and conduct,
learning to sift the wheat from the chaff. Students must learn to recognize the
premises from which criticisms are launched to evaluate these premises and to
compare these with Christian presuppositions. In this way our graduates leave
us well armed to deal with skeptical or hostile viewpoints.
*Dr. Lars I. Granberg, president of Northwestern College, Orange City, Iowa, has written this article for National Christian College Day, April 28. He is contributing editor of the Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation. Reprinted by permission of The Church Herald, Louis H. Benea, editor, from the issue of April 26, 1968.