Fides Quaerens Intellectum

Happy Thanksgiving!

            In May 2005, I had the privilege of visiting Wheaton College and spending nearly an entire day with president Duane Litfin.  We discussed, among other things, the landscape of Christian higher education in the United States and the current challenges that institutions face both internally and externally.  I also had the opportunity to meet personally with his cabinet members that day, and what I left campus thinking was “wow, this place has its act together.”  Perfect?  No, far from it.  It is a human institution, and as such is fallen just like all other colleges and nonprofits.  But I walked away from my experience realizing something about Wheaton that cannot be taken for granted, namely the fact that the president actually leads the institution.  “So what?” you might be thinking,  “isn’t that what all college president do just by virtue of being president?”  Nope.  Not even close.  Many presidents manage their institutions, but few actually lead their institutions, or at least few lead well.  In order to lead well, I submit that a president must be more than a mere fundraiser par excellence; the president must also lead with ideas.  Dr. Litfin does exactly that.  A double-Ph.D. from Purdue University and Oxford University, he is no academic slouch.  He has spent time in the classroom, and he has authored his share of publications.  And, his recent book on Christian higher education demonstrates his deep understanding of why a Christian liberal arts education and the rigorous pursuit of faith-learning integration across the academic disciplines is so valuable–indeed, necessary–in this day and age.  I am grateful for Wheaton and for its leadership among peer institutions, both Christian and secular colleges alike, and I take heart in the fact that this venerable institution has Duane Litfin as its leader.  Below I’ve posted a review I wrote of his book.  Feel free to post your comments on it!

           -John D. Basie

Duane A. Litfin, Conceiving the Christian College:  A college president shares his vision of Christian higher education.  Grand Rapids:  Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2004. 

For over twenty-five years, faithful academicians who work inside the Christian academy have been engaging in an intentional project of institutional self-reflection.  Indeed, it is a fair statement to point out that, during this time, the literature on the integration of faith and learning—and the Christian college’s role in that project—has burgeoned exponentially.  Like other academic disciplines that require serious thought and dialogue, both verbal and written, this corpus of literature is now nothing less than its own cottage industry.  And this is as it should be.  Authors such as Arthur Holmes, George Marsden, Mark Noll, James Burtchaell, Douglas Sloan, Mark Schwehn, David Dockery and Robert Benne are now household names for those who have been bringing their scholarly acumen to bear on the state of the Christian college itself, as well as to make prescriptions for its long-term health.  Now add to that list Duane Litfin, a scholar in his own right to be sure, but whose current post happens to be the presidency of Wheaton College. 

Litfin’s purpose in the book is to bring to light “a handful of salient ideas that currently need some special attention” due to their being “under-appreciated, under-developed, or even misunderstood” (I).  Toward this end, he devotes the first eight chapters to discussion of issues related to faith/learning integration at a theoretical level; the last four chapters include meaningful possibilities for application.  A few of the questions he poses to the reader from the outset pertain to the uniqueness of a confessionally Christian institution of higher education such as “What is unique about us?” (2) And, “What is our unique contribution to the marketplace of ideas?” (3). Additionally, Litfin addresses questions regarding the responsibility of distinctly Christian institutions to contribute to the world of ideas in an increasingly secularized culture, and he assesses the prospects for the success and long-term sustainability of such institutions.  The author clearly demonstrates an impressive command of the relevant literature throughout the work, but he is careful to avoid a mere rephrasing of what others—including the scholars listed above—have said already regarding the secularization of the academy, re-legitimizing distinctively Christian scholarship, etc.  Instead, he asks the reader to conceive the whole of the Christian college in terms of the second person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ. 

Litfin continues by distinguishing between two types of Christian colleges.  The first he calls the “Umbrella” model.  Institutions of this sort “provide a Christian ‘umbrella’ or canopy under which a variety of voices can thrive” (14).  In this model, there is typically a critical mass of Christian voices ably representing the institution’s sponsoring Christian tradition, “so that the sponsoring voice remains a privileged one.”  However, not all voices are required to be Christian voices.  Umbrella institutions will also hire non-Christian voices, provided that they demonstrate support for the institution’s mission.  As Litfin points out, “Umbrella institutions create an environment congenial to Christian thinking, but without expecting it of everyone” (17).  The second type of Christian institution is born out of the Systemic model.  In contrast to the Umbrella model, these institutions attempt to engage ideas “from a particular intellectual location, that of the sponsoring Christian tradition” (18).  All faculty members in this kind of academic environment, says Litfin, “seek to live and work as Christians.”  Although his own institution—Wheaton College—is a Systemic institution, he affirms the need for both types of Christian colleges, and calls for members of both communities to stand in support of each other.

The author proceeds to challenge the reader to consider what a Christ-centered education really is.  He worries that the oft-used mantra “Christ-centered education” has been reduced to a slogan that “rolls easily off our tongues.  Perhaps too easily” (36).  He is not satisfied with a Christian education that does not extend beyond the claim that Christ died for our sins on the cross.  Litfin rightly points out that Christians who settle for such a view of Christian higher education “willingly celebrate Jesus as their sin-bearer but without ever comprehending who he really is, or the colossal scope of what he has done, or even what took place on that cross” (37).  He does, however, have a remedy.  “But for the purposes of Christian higher education,” says Litfin, “such a stunted Christology will not do.  We require a fuller vision, the vision of Jesus Christ as Lord.”  Litfin then demonstrates—with a considerable show of biblical and theological sophistication—how the Lordship of Christ is central to all areas of inquiry of the created order.  He reminds the reader, however, that, although the business of cultivating our minds may have the effect of transforming the culture for Christ, we must avoid an instrumental view of Christian liberal arts education.  That is, we must not engage in higher learning only for the sake of transforming culture.  Instead, “Our prime motive must be obedience to Jesus Christ.”

Litfin then moves on to a more detailed discussion of what is required of the institution that has Christ at its very core.  His intention is to show how a commitment to a truly Christ-centered higher education will, as Richard John Neuhaus has pointed out, seek to reject “the dichotomies that pit truth against truth.”[1]  He calls for hard work, determination, and humility in the effort to attain the goal of “plumbing the Christ-centered unity of all things” (72).  Part of the hard work, according to Litfin, includes a commitment by scholars in all disciplines to be not only experts in their fields of teaching and research, but who also exude theological and biblical literacy that goes beyond Sunday school.  He shows why biblical and theological sharpness is a prerequisite for the Christ-centered institution that wishes to avoid the epistemological trappings of both modernity and postmodernity.  Litfin insists that Christian institutions must hold fast to historic Christianity’s understanding of knowledge, which avoids Enlightenment-driven dichotomous thinking about faith and learning (i.e., faith and learning occupy separate spheres, so there is no possibility of conflict), but which also avoids slipping into an anti-foundationalist, anti-grand metanarrative postmodernism whose radical “perspectivism” denies the intelligibility of truth claims about any reality external to the individual.  “If we genuinely believe in the integration of faith and learning” claims Litfin, “we must recognize that probably its single greatest competitor is the language of dichotomy” (179).  He persuasively argues that, if we believe in the God of the Bible, all of our knowledge projects must begin with the assumption that Christ is at the very center.  Thus, we need to renew and reinforce our commitment to the reality of revealed truth.  Litfin argues that historic Christianity’s approach to the faith/learning project was to give “conceptual priority to faith over learning” (200).  Based on the words of Paul, Augustine, and Anselm, he correctly concludes that “the Bible provides us our starting point:  the Lordship of Jesus Christ.”  The fact that truth is revealed through the Bible tells us that, in all of our inquiries into the created order, we should begin by plumbing the depths of the unseen reality, because the “world of the seen will always be deficient….only in the light [of revelation] can we understand aright the world of the seen” (212). 

The last three chapters are, arguably, the most interesting and helpful from a leadership perspective.  Litfin rightly recognizes the tension that exists between the demands of academic freedom, as dictated by the academic guild with which one is associated and theological loyalty, which is often a condition of employment at Systemic institutions (e.g., the requirement of signing the institution’s doctrinal statement).  The Voluntary Principle, according to Litfin, reconciles these two demands.  This principle, in essence, says that “by allowing the college to draw its staff from those whose personal convictions, developed of their own volition, align them with the college’s publicly stated commitments” (222).   The book concludes with discussions about the institutional breadth, the importance of its uniqueness, and the place of the Christian college in the marketplace of ideas. 

The book’s weaknesses are relatively minor.  First, the author could have demonstrated better philosophical sophistication in certain examples (math, chemistry) of how the integration project itself might take shape.  Although it is certainly a noble goal for chemistry professors to encourage their students to see how “the heavens and earth declare the glory of God” (76) through the study of the discipline, a meaningful discussion of integration needs to be much more specific.  For example, how is it possible that results from chemistry experiments are repeatable?  If the universe exists only by chance, as would all the chemicals that comprise it, why should we expect any semblance of order and design that would make repeatable results possible?  Another point of “integrative” contact for chemistry (although perhaps better suited for biochemists) pertains to the chemical make-up of human persons, and how it might be possible to explain human consciousness (which many philosophers and theologians have argued is utterly non-physical by its nature) on the basis of brain chemistry alone.  Is there a sense in which the physical chemicals in the brain “interact” with a nonphysical mind in the soul to produce consciousness?  Or are we to conclude, contrary to Scripture, that humans are physical beings only?  Perhaps consciousness is a physical property of human beings.  If not, then how could physical chemicals—in any combination—give rise to anything non-physical, such as consciousness?  Although this reviewer acknowledges that the author’s purpose is not to outline the most salient points of integration in any particular discipline, it is probably fair to say that he would have been more convincing to Christian scholars who currently hold to more of a two-spheres model of faith and learning had he only been more specific in the examples that he offered. 

Further, this reviewer believes that Litfin could have pointed out the importance of the priority of theology and philosophy over other disciplines in the integration project.  By their very natures, philosophy and theology examine and establish the assumptions upon which all other disciplines are built.  Philosophy examines and clarifies the first principles of reality, but it also has the task of providing a second-order study of other disciplines.  Thus we see articles and books on the philosophy of history, philosophy of art, and yes, the philosophy of religion.  For Christian colleges to be Christ-centered in all disciplines, biblically and theologically sophisticated philosophers and philosophically sophisticated Bible scholars and theologians need to collaborate more often in providing more meaningful intellectual leadership in our faith/learning integration projects across the disciplines.  This is certainly not to claim that Christian philosophers and theologians have all the answers to integration-type questions.  But they can, and should, lead the charge on more Christian college campuses.  Litfin’s persuasive argument for Christ-centered education would have been even more persuasive had this point been made. 

Finally, this reviewer was left wishing for a call from Litfin challenging Christian liberal arts colleges to raise the bar with respect to Bible and theology requirements in undergraduate coursework.  Many CCCU schools, for example require only one or two courses in Bible or theology to satisfy the “core” or “distribution” requirements.  If it is indeed true, as the author argues in various ways throughout the book, that all who trumpet meaningful integration of faith and learning as a primary educational goal to become more biblically literate for the sake of first, being more Christ-centered, and secondly, providing our students with the rudimentary elements that make true integration possible, then why don’t more of our schools make biblical studies and theology the true “center” of the curriculum?  The author’s own institution has a more exacting Bible and theology requirement than many CCCU institutions, but still not as exacting as ABHE-accredited Bible colleges across the country, which require a minimum of 30 semester hours of Bible for graduation.  Only two full CCCU member institutions—Biola University and Crown College—have maintained their curricular requirements of 30 hours of Bible, theology, and church history.  The point here is not “one-upsmanship” regarding who requires more hours of Bible and theology.  This reviewer, to be sure, does not believe that 30 semester hours of Bible is some magic number that issues in biblical competency.  The number could very well be less, and students could still graduate with considerable biblical literacy.  The point is that far too many Christian liberal arts colleges do not have Bible at the core of the curriculum.  Bible departments (or, more increasingly, departments of religion) and the courses they offer appear to be just one more choice in a smorgasbord of educational options for our students.  The “smorgasbord” dynamic tends to reinforce the two-spheres—or dichotomous—view of faith and learning, for it sends the message that “this area of inquiry is another valuable feather in your cap, but it is not really more important than any other.”  This is most unfortunate, and a course correction is greatly needed. 

Despite the book’s minor weaknesses, this reviewer found Litfin’s book to be a welcome and refreshing addition to the corpus of faith/learning literature.  The contributions of scholars such as Arthur Holmes and George Marsden to the faith/learning discussion through their respective areas of expertise—philosophy and history—have been, and will continue to prove to be essential for Christian higher education in the twenty-first century.  Through Litfin’s work, however, we now have a clarion call in the Christian liberal arts movement to get back to the Bible and the centrality of Christ in all areas of inquiry.  For leaders of Christian liberal arts institutions, this is a most needed call indeed.  Litfin does not merely talk about the need for integration, for throughout the book itself he brings his own biblical and theological expertise to the table and is doing biblical integration throughout the book’s pages. 

Another strength of the book has to do with the example it sets for Christian higher education leadership.  The very fact that a Christian college president has written such a book makes a statement about vision.  The president is the primary keeper of the vision, and this book is a “vision statement” of sorts targeted not only at those currently inside the walls of Christian liberal arts colleges, namely faculty, administration, and students.  It is also appropriately targeted at those persons outside the walls of the institution who could join the effort to expand Christ’s kingdom through a thoroughgoing commitment to the Lordship of Christ in all disciplines, namely alumni and potential stewardship partners.  Further, the fact that Litfin’s work is largely a scholarly one should remind governing boards of Christian colleges that the president is not merely the CEO; he is also the intellectual leader of the institution.  In a day and age where the president-as-CEO (i.e., a president who is a businessman but not himself an academician) model is becoming increasingly popular, Litfin’s book is a timely reminder that Christian college presidents are expected by their communities—and rightly so—to be critical thinkers. 

Yet another strength of Litfin’s work is his chapter on the Voluntary Principle.  This reviewer agrees that this principle is essential, and especially for Systemic institutions.  Further, institutions that are weakly systemic (i.e., where faculty are Christians, but perhaps only nominally so) and need strengthening can benefit through the application of this principle.  Because of the principle, department chairs, deans, and senior level administrators who make hiring decisions ought not to feel pressure or be apologetic or embarrassed about their college’s faith commitment or doctrinal requirement.  This principle, when explained as articulately as what the author does in this book, should make sense to any potential faculty hire who has respect for the institution’s mission. 

Finally, the discussion of institutional breadth and distinctiveness in chapter 11 should be examined carefully by administrative leaders and boards of all institutions whose mission is grounded in the Christ-centeredness for which Litfin so passionately argues.  The responsibility to maintain an institution’s identity, as he points out, lies not just with the upper administration and board of trustees, but also with alumni, students, faculty, staff and ecclesiastical affiliations.  However, it is particularly important that the institution’s governing board be intentional and self-reflective about how the mission is being carried out in ways that demonstrate the institution’s Christ-centeredness.  The author’s reminder along these lines is perceptive:  “But one thing all such schools hold in common; each must work hard to keep its identity clear, explicit, and public.  Whatever the arrangement, if either the Christian identity of the college or the responsibility for maintaining (or amending) it is not clear, the college is likely already to be in the process of evolving away from it” (238).  Boards of trustees would do well to heed his words by being ever-vigilant about preserving and strengthening their institutions’ uniqueness that is a product of being truly Christ-centered.

In conclusion, this reviewer is in full agreement with others in the Christian higher education community who have enthusiastically endorsed this fine work by Duane Litfin.  It should be required reading of all new faculty, administrators, and board members at Christian colleges across the nation who seek to be faithful to their institutions’ Christ-centered mission statements.

[1]Richard John Neuhaus, “The Christian University:  Eleven Theses.”  First Things 59 (January 1996): 20-22.