James Burtchaell’s 9 steps of Alienation in Christian Higher Education

1. A period of stagnation is evident in the life of the institution; a dynamic typically attributed to “depressive influence” by the institution’s sponsoring denomination.  This is then often followed by a time of social unrest and intellectual turbulence in both the denomination and the institution, because “fresh findings and methods and disciplines [raise] fearful philosophical challenges to theology.  Spokesmen for the church’s concerns, by a compound of incapacity and animosity, [exacerbate] the apparent hostility between the church and rigorous scholarship” (144).
2. An administrator, usually the president, is convinced of the need to raise the institution’s level of academic prestige and overall excellence.  However, the institution’s sponsoring denomination is seen as an adversary—or at best, an irritating obstacle—to the achievement of this goal (149).
3. Estrangement from the sponsoring denomination occurs during a time when it is financially profitable for the institution to accept funding from secular sources.  Further, the institution may justify the estrangement on the basis of the sponsoring denomination’s inability or lack of willingness to provide funds sufficient to meet the institution’s academic ambitions (152).
4. A “loyalty shift” occurs, i.e., there is a transfer of primary loyalty from the denomination to the academic guild.  This especially holds true for the faculty (153).
5. There is a decline of support for any institutional policy which requires active communion in church as a qualification for entrance to its constituencies, including its governance (board), administration, faculty, and student body.  A secondary effect of this dynamic is the university’s inability to identify itself as a unit of the sponsoring denomination (156).
6. There is a “progressive devolution” of institutional representatives who identify with any church at all.  Typically this involves a significant percentage of staff and faculty who first abandon the distinctives of the sponsoring denomination in their language and practices (i.e. from “Methodist” to “Christian”), then to generically religious and finally to overtly secular (157).
7. There is an anxiety and sense of urgency generated by the tension created when the institution attempts to appeal to one constituency (e.g., the state, intellectual elite, donors, etc.) while simultaneously trying to avoid antagonizing another constituency (e.g., the church and its campus representatives).  The solution to this tension is often to replace religious identity with “reductionist equivalents,” e.g., identifying the Christian mission of the institution with making contributions toward a more prosperous and socially conscious American public.  Additionally, a common substitute for deep religious faith was “morality;” the institution persists in its dedication to cultivate moral character within its students (158-60).
8. Theological studies/church ministry studies are separated from the academic center of the institution.  In the Vanderbilt case, this move was seen as an enhancement of autonomy and academic freedom for these departments, but in reality it was a marginalizing factor (161).
9. Active Christians are typically more effective in alienating colleges and universities from their faith-communities than are hostile secularists.  Historically, this change has occurred in three stages: a) First there is a “muting”—usually enacted by Christians—of all or most overt claims of the institution to be a functional limb of a particular denomination.  Statements, decisions and symbols that were historically public and unapologetic become private and bashful in their tenor.  b) The period following is often a time of high morale on campus due to the perception that academic standards and aspirations are rising, as are prestige and funding.  Faith is “mute” but still present.  c) This third and final period is marked by institutional control via a new breed of intellectuals whose obedience is fully to the academic guilds and their foundational assumptions, which are radically divorced from faith commitments or religion in general.  It is at this point that the institution becomes completely secularized.

* Taken from “The Alienation of Christian Higher Education in America: Diagnosis and Prognosis.  In Schooling Christians: “Holy Experiments” in American Education

by Stanley Hauerwas (Author), John H. Westerhoff (Editor) Eerdmans 1992.

What is the right way to compensate pastors, as well as to raise their earnings year after year?  My own conviction on the matter is pretty simple:  the governing body (in a Presbyterian church, that would be the Session) has to measure performance based on the expectations and requirements as defined by the pastor’s job description.  Of course, that assumes there is such a thing as a job description, which I have discovered over the years isn’t a fair assumption to make.  But, assuming that ALL pastoral staff members have job descriptions, what then is fair when it comes to pay raises?  Straight percentage across the board for all?  I’ve been part of a church whose standard practice was to issue the greatest percentage increase to the senior minister year after year after year.  Everyone else got a lower percentage, and it didn’t do anything good for the staff morale.  I suggest that churches give their pastors raises annually based on performance as outlined in the written job description, and have the systems in place (e.g., performance categories such as “satisfactory” “exceptional,” etc.) that makes it clear what it will take for the pastor to “earn” their annual raise.  And, I would aim for parity across the board in terms of a percentage.  If the senior minister gets a 7% raise and did so by virtue of permorming satisfactorily, then the associate ministers ought to get the same % increase if they scored the “satisfactory.”  For pastors who perform exceptionally, then that ought to factor into the raises each year, but in a different way.  Parity in the standard raise for ALL staff is important for good staff morale, but churches ought to encourage individual performance by promising the possibility of an additional bonus for performance that goes above and beyond.  I don’t have all this worked out, and I certainly don’t have all the answers to all the complexities.  But this is a start. 

Why blog about this?  Here’s why:  most pastors are not compensated fairly compared to the laymen who make up the church’s governing body.  Let’s be honest with ourselves, folks.  Those of us who are laymen just don’t think about this issue enough.  We have bought into the view that “you don’t go into ministry for the pay,” thus we barely take passing glance at what our ministers are making each year at budget time, and RARELY, if ever, do we ask them if their material needs are being met.  Pastors and their families have to live in the same expensive communities we do in order to continue doing ministry for us.  Here’s an idea:  what if each governing member (e.g., the elders, trustees, or deacons, depending on who qualifies as “governing” in your tradition) of your church got together and said “hey, let’s pay the pastor the average of what we as a group take home!”  I suspect that, whatever church of which you’re a member, your pastor’s salary would take quite a jump.  Unrealistic?  Hardly.  My wife and I worshipped at a PCA church in TX for two years that compensated their (solo) pastor using that formula.  It was the right thing to do, and it required vision and follow-through on the part of the church leadership. 

The quote comes from a sermon Witherspoon preached on campus on May 17, 1776, and its title is “The Dominion of Providence Over the Passions of Men.” Chief on his mind at this time in the nation’s history was the Revolution, and as president of the college of New Jersey he felt obligated to exhort the student body with respect to the role of the Christian religion in their lives and its value in sustaining the American republic:

 Suffer me to recommend to you an attention to the public interest of religion, or in other words, zeal for the glory of God and the good of others.  I have already endeavored to exhort sinners to repentance; what I have here in view is to point out to you the concern which every good man out to take in the national character and manners, and the means which he ought to use for promoting public virtue, and bearing down impiety and vice.  This is a matter of the utmost moment, and which ought to be well understood, both in its nature and principles.  Nothing is more certain than that a general profligacy and corruption of manners make a people ripe for destruction.  A good form of government may hold the rotten materials together for some time; but beyond certain pitch, even the best constitution will be ineffectual and slavery must ensue.  On the other hand, when the manners of a nation are pure, when true religion and internal principles maintain their vigor, the attempts of the most powerful enemies to oppress them are commonly baffled and disappointed.  This will be found equally certain, whether we consider the great principles of God’s moral government, or the operation and influence of natural causes.  What follows from this?  That he is the best friend to American liberty, who is the most sincere and active in promoting true and undefiled religion, and who sets himself with the greatest firmness to bear down profanity and immorality of every kind.

John Witherspoon, “The Dominion of Providence Over the Passions of Men.”  A sermon delivered at the College of New Jersey at Princeton; May 17, 1776.  In Matthew Rose and Alan R. Crippen, II (eds.), John Witherspoon:  An American Leader (Washington, D.C.:  Family Research Council, 1999):  72. 

Belonging to the Church

by lduncan

“The question whether or not to join the church or belong to the church is not one that is open for the Christian believer.” (Donald Macleod)

“We don’t go to church; we are the church.” (Ernest Southcott)

As much as I try resist the modernist assumption that technology-as-progress represents a good in itself (devoid of all other concerns), it seems inescapable that communication through cyberspace is too common (and expected) to be ignored.  If this is one way that we can create a community of ideas, then so be it.  I welcome comments from anyone who has an interest in the topics posted. 

One of the main goals of the IMPACT 360 program (a one-year academic program in biblical worldview–affiliated with Chick-fil-A, Inc.–for first-year college students where I’m the Associate Director for Academics…see website at http://www.impact360.net/) is to come alongside first-year college students with respect to hearing and clarifying God’s call on their lives.  “What would He have me do in this world?”  Certainly not an uncommon question among undergraduates, but certainly one that is often answered poorly by American colleges and universities.  If faculty and career services experts on campus even understand the question, often the most help students get is a personality test or two thrown at them in combination with some personal counseling regarding “career choice.”  In no way am I diminishing the value of such strategies, but proceeding along this path without a more holistic understanding of how one actually “hears” God’s call often only serves to confuse students more.  One oft-neglected factor in finding the answer to the “where am I headed in life” question is what I call the “community factor.”  And by community, I am specifically referring to the community of believers in Jesus Christ of which one is a part. 

The role of community in hearing God’s call

1 John 1:5; 1:7

“The essence of the community of the Spirit is light, for ‘God is light, and in him is no darkness at all….If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another.”

When you think of community, what comes to mind?  Friends, family, and your neighborhood certainly can qualify as communities of various sorts.  But not all communities are created equal with respect to helping its members hear and discern the call of God on their lives. 

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the German pastor-theologian during World War II once said that “Christian community is founded solely on Jesus Christ—it is therefore a spiritual, not a psychic reality.”  What does this mean?  It means that the life of the community flows from the way in which the Holy Spirit orders it and moves within the members of it, as opposed to the way a human community is ordered by our own sinful inclinations and desires.  In effect, there is a redemption that has taken place when the Spirit works in this way.  He works in concert with us.  Of the essential importance of Christian community, Bonhoeffer said:

God has willed that we should seek and find His living Word in the witness of a brother, in the mouth of man.  Therefore, the Christian needs another Christian who speaks God’s word to him.  He needs him again and again when he becomes uncertain and discouraged, for by himself he cannot help himself without belying the truth.  He needs his brother man as a bearer and proclaimer of the divine word of salvation.  He needs his brother solely because of Jesus Christ.  The Christ in his own heart is weaker than the Christ in the word of his brother; his own heart is uncertain, his brother’s is sure.

Bonhoeffer knew from experience the importance of genuine Christian community, having led and taught in a clandestine seminary in the age of Hitler and the Nazi government.  Through community Bonhoeffer gave and received spiritual encouragement, and it was through community that he realized his call to stand against the human atrocities caused by the Nazi regime.  In April of 1945, he was executed for living out his calling. 

William Wilberforce was an 18^th century member of the British parliament who led the movement to abolish the slave trade in England.  His call was clearly to work out his Christian worldview in the public sphere, which he did with unmatched commitment and vigor.  During a time when he was doubting this call—a dark time in his life when the pressures and ugliness of politics were discouraging him—he considered abandoning his political career and going into full-time parish ministry.  Interestingly, none other than  John Newton, author of the hymn Amazing Grace, wrote to Wilberforce when he learned of Wilberforce’s plans, and desperately urged him not to pursue the ministry, but to stay the course in the British parliament.  Newton himself had been a slave trader before his conversion to Christianity, and he knew God would use Wilberforce in his station.  Similarly, John Wesley said this to Wilberforce:  “… unless God has raised you up for this very thing, you will be worn out by the opposition of men and devils. But if God be for you, who can be against you?” 

Throughout the process, Wilberforce endured one setback after another, often burdened by poor health and discouragement brought on by the attacks of his political opponents. Yet his position against slavery eventually won. Wilberforce’s efforts in leading the abolition movement were successful, but it took 20 long years.  What were the means of grace by which he stayed the course and continued to pursue his calling to abolish the British slave trade?  One of those means was his community, known as the Clapham sect.  This was a group of committed Christians who banded together for the sake of impacting the Kingdom long-term.  This community was marked by a common commitment to Jesus Christ, a clear sense of calling, mutual submission, and corporate worship. 

Bonhoeffer and Wilberforce show us how God speaks to us through Christian community, and He shows us that with Him, all things are possible (Matt. 19:26) if we will only listen to him speaking through his Word and through our Christian brothers and sisters.  In God’s economy, there is no room for individualist heroes.  May He ignite our minds and hearts with a passion for building genuine Christian community, which is his body, the Church! 

Sources:  Christian History Institute, “William Wilberforce and the Fight Against Slavery:” http://www.gospelcom.net/chi/GLIMPSEF/Glimpses/glmps005.shtml

Richard L. Gathro, “William Wilberforce and His Circle of Friends,” http://www.pfm.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=William_Wilberforce&CONTENTID=10673&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together.  New York:  HarperCollins, 1954.