At the outset, I think it’s important to be clear that I myself am in no sort of institutional trouble, nor have I encountered any institutional trouble, nor am I addressing directly any institutions that I have attended or presently attend (though they both are confessional). Rather, I am speaking of any Confessional Institution (CI) in general. However, I have attended CSs long enough and have heard the stories of friends and family in a variety of CIs which I think somewhat authenticates my observations and concerns and gives me the right to speak.
A confessional institution, as I’m defining it, is one in which the faculty and students must adhere to/believe in a certain doctrinal statement (DS). The statement may be different for the faculty and students, i.e. the faculty’s DS might generally be longer and the student’s DS shorter, but there are a nonetheless a given set of beliefs that qualify or disqualify faculty and students for that institution.
The first problem as I see it concerns the nature of belief. When a faculty or student enters a CI, it is almost always the case that (s)he enters in whole-hearted agreement with the full doctrinal statement. For why else would someone otherwise want to attend that given CI? (Granted, there may be exceptions, but at this point we’ll move forward on that assumption). But at what point is it that a given belief changes and what allowance is given for a faculty member and student to remain in flux? Such may be more cut and dry for faculty: you may flirt with beliefs outside of the doctrinal statement, but do not teach, publish, or advocate for them, and if you conclude that you believe to the contrary of the DS, there is justification to ask for your resignation. A CI knows it is in the best interest of that faculty member, the CI, and the students that (s)he teach elsewhere because (s)he is unlikely to change his mind. For, a faculty member generally has a PhD, has wrestled with the issues, and (usually) does not take such doctrinal decisions lightly. Such action on the part of the CI is understandable (perhaps), for obvious reasons.
But, what of the student? A student in full agreement with a DS enters a CI only to learn critical thinking skills in order to expand his/her mind so to think for the Church as critical philosophers, historians, exegetes, theologians, pastors, missionaries, etc. And it is doubtful that a CI would admit to wanting to teach otherwise. If true critical thinking is then taught and a student practices cognitive dissonance as much as possible, what if the evidence leads that student to conclude contrary to something in the DS? What if the student is close to graduating and now feels (s)he disagrees with the confessional statement (s)he once signed? Should one leave and squander hard semesters of study? If a faculty member resigns, the teacher loses a job and is put in a difficult situation, but that teacher doesn’t lose a degree in the process. In the least a student might transfer to another institution, but they aren’t going to just give the student a degree, it’s likely they will have to do at least 2 years of additional course work. How does it make sense to teach a student such a method which penalizes them when it leads them to a conclusion contrary to the DS? As I see it, the CI has set a student up for failure.
Moreover, what is the nature of a belief? Let’s be honest: can a mere Bachelors or Masters student truly believe in something they are only now getting acquainted with? [Updated 8/2410, 9.54am: One might object and say a bachelors or masters student has more knowledge than a layperson, so yes he is to be held accountable. For would a layman not be held accountable if he held some outlandish belief? In my view, the key is that the education for the bachelor or masters student is "in progress." The education of an average layman is generally more stagnant than in progress, given the fact that his beliefs are not challenged day in and day out, hour in and hour out. And when such is underway, beliefs change.] It’s fairly uncontroversial that students change their mind every year, if not every semester/month/day/hour/minute. Surely, a student might dogmatically say “I no longer believe in X.” But would not a learned institution realize students are quick to speak and will likely change their mind given time? What if that student spoke too soon? What if a student believes contrary to the DS but feels uneasy about it, not wanting to go against it? Will that student be given time? Or will he be directed to the academic dean and be put on heresy trial, which happens more often than not (when the student is in clear violation of the DS [Updated 8/27/10, 9.54am])? If only the student did not follow the evidence. If only (s)he did not critically think about the issues . If only the (s)he did not learn the method taught to them by the CI. Then (s)he would be safe.
As you can see, I have asked a lot of questions. Why? Because as it stands CIs are unclear in these matters and they owe it to the students to provide clarity given that they place such doctrinal pressure on students.
Also unclear and up for consideration is the nature of assignments. What if the student writes an assignment that concludes contrary to a CI’s DS? Is one held accountable to that assignment because (s)he is stepping outside-of-the lines? Is there freedom for a student to write papers and conclude such temporarily as (s)he tries to practice being an exegete/theologian, etc?
While I certainly am only one individual and cannot speak for everyone, I can say with fair confidence that I have a pulse on the situation given the various information I’ve gathered throughout the years. And I know this: students go against where they think the evidence leads because they fear they might get kicked out of the CI. In other-words, they do not feel they are given the freedom to think aloud if heretical. And they are right to feel this way. I know of someone at a CI who asked a professor a difficult question and the professor responded, “Well, if that were true and we were to say that, then we have a problem with inerrancy. So it’s not a question up for serious consideration.”
At present, I am not aware of a CI that defines the nature of assignments as it applies to the institution’s DS. In my assessment, this is problematic. It should be made clear, because it is quite possible the doctrinal pressure students feel is in reality no pressure at all (for maybe CIs will allow a student to actually have a theological crisis). And perhaps it is just a romantic idea, but it is my hope that CI’s would allow a student to submit heretical assignments, so as to applaud the student for following the learned exegetical/hermeneutical method, to encourage open and honest dialogue between a professor and a student, to encourage asking the tough questions even at the expense of entering heresy, knowing that a student while in a Bachelors/Masters institution is going to be in theological/doctrinal flux [Update 08/24/10, 9.54am: Luke has a helpful comment on this below]. And again, a student may sound dogmatic and declare he has renounced the CI, but how seriously can we take that their education is still in process? I’ve renounced many things while a student, only to change my mind on several occasions. The truth is, it is tough to really believe anything while a student, and the sense I get from my colleagues is that they too are mostly agnostic (even on the important issues), at least while a student. College and graduate studies are for deconstruction. Reconstruction during such years is only a romantic idea, no matter how hard schools try to build it in to their curriculum. This all is problematic, and clarity is needed, and CIs really need to consider these issues—especially given the history of confessional institutions being so quick on the draw to call a student in on a heresy trial.
Briefly and related, another problem concerns blogging. What is the nature of a blog? Is it published material a student can be held accountable for? Or are they initial thoughts as one thinks aloud in a community to wrestle with serious issues. And again, even if a student asserts something to the contrary of his/her’s institutional DS, does that constitute belief? Or is there lee-way for a student to change opinion? How much time does a student receive if this is the case?
Many disagree as to the nature of blogs (though I’m clear as to what I think in my disclaimer page). Some say it is not considered published material, yet others say it is and students should be held accountable. Confessional institutions have not responded. There is not one I know of that have clarified the nature of online dialogue, yet again I know students who have been placed on heresy trial for matters they write on their blog.
In sum, the model of the CI is problematic. Two suggestions come to mind: First, a CI should change its policy and not require students to adhere to a DS. They might require adherence to one upon admission, but find it understandable if a student changes beliefs and walks outside of the institution’s distinctives, since that student is only thinking honestly and critically as a given CI would have him/her think. A second option is that a confessional institution, should they not change the DS requirement, should in the least provide clarification for students as to the nature of assignments, blogs, and other conversations (whether they be online [Facebook/Twitter/etc] or in-person), and to clarify what if any lee way a student is given when walking outside of the DS. I say this of course with the hope that CIs understand the nature of a Bachelors and Masters program (that it results in doctrinal and theological deconstruction/flux) and respond accordingly and positively towards students, alleviating any doctrinal/theological pressure.
August 27th, 2010 at 2:08 am
As a confessional Presbyterian, I completely disagree. If an institution aims at being a Christian, essential to being a Christian is confessing what one believes (e.g. Heb 10:23). Now, if the institution does not wish to be Christian, especially training for ministry which is proclaiming a confession, then that is another matter. However, an Institution cannot be Christian without being confessional.
August 27th, 2010 at 2:15 am
but do they have to hold students to such? and if you require confession, how much confession is too much? And just to be clear, by “completely disagree” you disagree that CIs should be clear in the nature of assignments, blogs, etc?
August 27th, 2010 at 3:51 pm
I disagree in regards to saying “A student in full agreement with a DS enters a CI only to learn critical thinking skills in order to expand his/her mind so to think for the Church as critical philosophers, historians, exegetes, theologians, pastors, missionaries, etc”
A student enters a (Christian Seminary) confessional institution likely because one wishes to learn more deeply the doctrine of that confession for the proclamation of that doctrine to the edification of the church. If one enters Westminster Theological Seminary, it is most likely because that person wants to minister in a church that subscribes to the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF). Within the OPC, one must subscribe to the whole WCF, and prefer to hire ministers that have come from an institution that teaches the WCF, and to which the graduates subscribe. When a student enters a confessional institution, that student is covenanting to sit under teaching that is in line with that doctrine and if the convictions of that student change, then that student should confess that and leave. Now, other institutions have a two tiered system, such as DTS where the student is only held to 7 points of doctrine that any Christian ought to adhere to. The larger statement is not a required part of that covenant and so one may, and indeed I did, disagree with that larger statement in assignments and in my blog. However, if I was covenanted to adhere to the whole doctrinal statement, I would have left for another institution.
There is a responsibility and duty of a student to the teacher and institution, not merely of an institution to the student, and so one may not like the idea of, or the particular content of a confessional institution, but the student is not forced to attend that institution and has the option of attending a non-confessional institution or a confessional institution that better meets the requirements of that student. Certainly, the liberty of expression of different opinions is the right of the citizen, but it is not the right of a student in a confessional institution any more than openly promoting Apple products is a right of a Microsoft employee.
August 27th, 2010 at 5:08 pm
“I disagree in regards to saying “A student in full agreement with a DS enters a CI only to learn critical thinking skills in order to expand his/her mind so to think for the Church as critical philosophers, historians, exegetes, theologians, pastors, missionaries, etc”
A student enters a (Christian Seminary) confessional institution likely because one wishes to learn more deeply the doctrine of that confession for the proclamation of that doctrine to the edification of the church.”
Sorry I wasn’t clear here. What I mean when I say a student enters a CI “only to” learn critical thinking is not purpose. I don’t mean a student enters for the purpose of learning critical thinking. He enters with the inevitable result of learning critical thinking, because graduate institutions teach such.
I appreciate the rest of which you say, but on these issues it is accurate to say we disagree, but that’s fine. (i defer to the post for my rationale)
August 27th, 2010 at 2:26 am
I understand why they do it to a degree. They want to protect the reputation of the school and make sure that their graduates fall in line doctrinally with the institution. That way, when their grads go and work at churches or whatever people will know what they’re getting. However, this is just a mindset of fear, plain and simple (and experience tells me it isn’t nearly as effective as they think it is). Chances are, a student studying at a conservative institution isn’t going to become an atheistic liberal. They may give up some conservative beliefs and hold to them more loosely, but they generally won’t fall off the deep end. I think the way it’s currently set up makes the temptation to reject the CI’s doctrinal distinctives even greater once the graduate leaves the CI. If they felt more freedom to engage the evidence and dialogue honestly in community while they’re a student at the CI, then perhaps they wouldn’t leave the CI and throw it all away. Story after story I hear about people who have went to some conservative CI with no freedom to think and they end up throwing it all away and completely rebelling.
I’m perfectly fine with the faculty having to adhere to a certain set of beliefs (though I believe those beliefs should be much fewer than they generally are), but making the students adhere to it is a bit ridiculous to me. We’re not being educated to affirm our presuppositions. We don’t do assignments knowing which stance we’re going to take at the end of it. It should be a time to think, wrestle, explore other options, and dialogue honestly amongst faculty and peers. The way it’s set up now, you basically have to get a secret posse to have some honest dialogue about some tough issues you’re dealing with regarding the faith and certain doctrinal positions. I’m thankful that there’s generally a few professors who you can trust to talk with (which are often the exegetes, ironically). If you open your mouth to a systematic or historical theology prof about wrestling with the idea of inerrancy being bogus, penal substitution being problematic, our concept of hell being dead wrong, or open theism being a legitimate evangelical option, then you can pretty much count on it that a heresy trial is coming. The “theological police” mindset many of these guys have makes me want to pull my hair out. Is the job of a professor to be a guardian of their institution’s narrow doctrinal positions or to help their students think and wrestle with the evidence they have available to them? Sure, try to convince them of your option, but don’t turn them in to the academic dean just because they’re struggling with some doctrine. Help them through it. Persuade them. It may take 3 years to do it, but meet with them on a weekly basis about it. I think it’s just a result of the “Protestant” mindset many CI’s have.
August 27th, 2010 at 2:30 am
On the nature of blogs, in my mind, CI’s have already spoken. From a few friends who attended CI’s, I know that some CI’s monitor blogs of students they deems as being not confessional enough, even to the point of being threatened with expulsion. Even if blogs are not consider published material, they are public material that may reflect the image and nature of the CI.
August 27th, 2010 at 2:33 am
Which in particular? I imagine this is just one case rather than the majority. Most are unclear.
And it just goes to show you how out of touch the CI you mention is with modern culture and blogs.
August 27th, 2010 at 2:37 am
i would have to facebook message you for the distribution of this information.
August 27th, 2010 at 3:12 am
[...] At the outset, I think it’s important to be clear that I myself am in no sort of institutional trouble, nor have I encountered any institutional trouble, nor am I addressing directly any institutions that I have attended or presently attend (though they both are confessional). Rather, I am speaking of any Confessional Institution (CI) in general. However, I have attended confessional institutions long enough and have heard the stories of friends … Read More [...]
August 27th, 2010 at 3:56 am
I think it might be helpful to look at this issue from a different angle. It seems to me that most CI’s purpose is to train ministers for a certain denomination or subset of Christianity. Westminster and Covenant’s main goal is to train Presbyterian ministers. SBTS, SWBTS, SEBTS main goal is to train Southern Baptist ministers and schools like TEDS or DTS main goal is to train ministers for conservative evangelical churches. When those schools grant a degree to students, especially an MDiv, there are telling the churches that look to them that they have confirmed that the recipient of the degree has met the educational standards for ministerial work (of course there are other standards but education is the main one at a seminary). If a student changes his beliefs to ones that fall outside the bounds of what the denomination sees has required for ministerial work then the school would not want to grant the credentials of a degree. I am sympathetic to those who have their ideas challenged in school and may change their minds on certain issues, and there is usually an option to transfer most credits to another institution where the student could finish their degree without doctrinal constraints, but I think most schools would see their main purpose as the preparation of new ministers for the churches which they serve and are supported by. Feel free to disagree.
August 27th, 2010 at 4:08 am
Hi Daniel. Thanks for your thoughts. I think a CI can certainly affirm a denomination that a seminary student was trained under certain distinctives, certain curriculum, by certain faculty, and that when the student entered he held to their DS. But is it the place of a CI try to tell a denomination “here is what all of our students believe: . . .” Is that not manipulation to try and produce such? This opposes critical thinking, something no CI would admit. Are CIs building robots or critical thinkers? Just how I see it right now…
August 27th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
[...] Rob Kashow has a great post up on Confessional Institutions. [...]
August 27th, 2010 at 1:19 pm
[...] By the way, they have a podcast site, if you are interested. Oh, and yes, they are accredited if you are into that sort of thing, although those who hold to Libertarian views should really be against Government intrusion into education. (zing!!!!) Also, I haven’t had to confess anything to be in. [...]
August 27th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
[...] – Robert Kashow explains the problem with “confessional institutions”. [...]
August 27th, 2010 at 3:40 pm
Rob,
I agree and disagree. I think this can be problematic, especially if the institution has an exceptionally long list of precise distinctive characteristics. On the other hand, I am now working on my second degree in a confessional institution but the confession for a student is minimal–essentially the Evangelical Alliance Statement of Faith which is a short list of sometimes vague assertions: http://www.opensourcetheology.net/node/616.
The short list that my seminary asks one to affirm is helpful because if people are going to be really contentious about something simple like the deity of Christ this can be very distracting to those who are not wanting to debate such a matter with classmates while being more concerned with preparing for the pastorate. There are plenty of institutions where one can debate such a thing in class, but some students want to go somewhere where they know people will be like-minded about what is considered the “basics”.
Since the “confessional” that I know seems much more lax than what you are protesting here I am in agreement with the spirit of this post. I can think of several schools I would not want to attend because the list is much too long and the heresy hunting much too fierce. On the other hand, we must clarify that many confessional schools are not this way.
August 27th, 2010 at 5:11 pm
But what constitutes a ‘long list’? Every institution thinks there list is short when it comes down to it.
The other problem concerns ‘vague’ assertions. I’m thinking about dealing this in a separate post. But a CI’s DS usually has some vague assertions but are still quick to call a student in for heresy trial. Is it fair to leave a DS vague and place such pressure on a student? CI’s owe it to the students to be clear not vague. And if they mean to be vague and leave ambiguity, that needs to be clearly stated. Otherwise the students do not know what to think.
I appreciate your comment, Brian.
August 27th, 2010 at 5:19 pm
Rob,
As concerns a ‘long list’ this is relative. I might add that I think those wanting to become students should consider the possibility that this may happen. Sure, once a student is in the institution and they change their mind this could be a problem, but I can’t help but think people must be smart enough to look at a list and say, “That is a bit long, I may not be able to affirm all these things down to road.”
Vague assertions can be helpful because they set guidelines without needing to go to war over everything. For instance, in the one I linked, it says less about the nature of Scripture than the ETS does. If someone doesn’t want to say even those things about Scripture there are plenty of schools available to choose.
August 27th, 2010 at 5:27 pm
But students haven’t learned critical thinking skills yet — at least not to the extent that they can realize. I’m speaking only from personal experience, but also I know numerous other who have said as much, but one cannot be prepared for the cognitive transformation that takes place. At least that’s my spin on it.
I’m with you on vague assertions. Don’t get me wrong, I agree. My only issue is it needs to be stated clearly that the DS intends to be vague in that given area. Does that make sense? Otherwise, down the road there is a loophole for a school to kick a student out, since the CI can define a given point in the DS how they want, since it’s vague. This has happened. Thanks again for your continued dialogue.
August 27th, 2010 at 10:44 pm
Hi Rob,
Some interesting thoughts, some of which resonate with me.
I think there is an inherent tension between the academic and critical thinking training that a graduate level institution is supposed to foster and the advancement of ministerial training to affirm a particular set of beliefs. Luke makes good sense that CI need to protect their reputation, but is that protection sought at risk of undermining academic rigors that provide evaluative skills for the student to decipher what they believe and why. I have to imagine that the school administration wrestles with what exactly they want their reputation to be. I think the stronger the ministerial affiliation, the more likely the curriculum and academic process would be geared towards affirming beliefs such that academic training is almost a deductive exercise to assure that the student can easily maintain the school’s doctrinal position. On the other hand, if academic integrity is being reputed, then that might necessarily undermine the adherence for certain points of doctrine.
In addition to reputation, It also seems to me that the CI might be interested in providing protection for the student to wrestle with beliefs while being affirmed in certain points of doctrine. That way, while deconstruction occurs their are core doctrinal beliefs to be considered that might not be the case in other institutions. However, Luke makes a good point that the program can be so rigidly defined that prohibits the critical thinking skills needed to wrestle with competing points of view. So on one hand, you have the possibility of protecting the student’s doctrinal belief at the expense of critical examination that would otherwise exist if a broader range of positions could be espoused or embraced. But if those are too rigidly defined, there is a good possibility of post-seminary departure from even key points of faith. But on the other hand, there might be a fear too much exposure and investigation into the broader range of possibilities could not only deconstruct the faith but tarnish the school’s reputation. I would be interested in statistics that compare a CI with a non-CI post-seminary, regarding 1) change of beliefs and 2) outright apostasy.
But it seems to me that the greater liberty of examining the broader range of views is a more intellectually honest approach. What you say here makes good sense – “And I know this: students go against where they think the evidence leads because they fear they might get kicked out of the CI. In other-words, they do not feel they are given the freedom to think aloud if heretical.” That to me is counter-productive to the critical thinking skills that are supposed to be fostered. But it does go back to which reputation the school seeks to uphold, rather academic or ministerial.
And I agree with this here, especially if such assignments can be submitted under the doctrinal protection of the CI.
“…it is my hope that CI’s would allow a student to submit heretical assignments, so as to applaud the student for following the learned exegetical/hermeneutical method, to encourage open and honest dialogue between a professor and a student, to encourage asking the tough questions even at the expense of entering heresy, knowing that a student while in a Bachelors/Masters institution is going to be in theological/doctrinal flux”
August 27th, 2010 at 10:53 pm
Surely there are some who have not learned critical thinking skills but I would hope at the MA level that one would at least be self-aware enough to be honest and say, “This list is too long” or “This list is too specific”. Sure, some schools use the vagueness and I can image some that would do so. My own experience has not been like that though.
And honestly, if someone couldn’t affirm certain doctrines and they were almost to graduation the best thing to do is stay quiet and peaceful and finish your degree!
August 28th, 2010 at 2:24 am
Brian,
I am going to have to agree with Rob here. My undergrad time was spent being introduced to my area of study. I was becoming familiar; I was not yet at the point of thinking critically—even at the point of finishing my BA and transitioning to the beginning of my Master’s studies. I don’t think the typical, entering Master’s student is a critical thinker. I certainly was not. Critical thinking is a skill I developed (and am still developing) during my Master’s program.
August 28th, 2010 at 4:56 am
[...] By the way, they have a podcast site, if you are interested. Oh, and yes, they are accredited if you are into that sort of thing, although those who hold to Libertarian views should really be against Government intrusion into education. (zing!!!!) Also, I haven’t had to confess anything to be in. [...]
August 30th, 2010 at 12:52 am
Rob,
Thanks for this post. I wonder if I can ask you to clarify something. You refer twice to “heretical” thoughts or assignments. How are you using the term “heretical”? Do you mean it in the technical sense of going against that which has been established in the ecumenical creeds, or do you just mean it in the sense of going against the DS of the CI?
I know that some of your readers undoubtedly will assume you mean the former. Just thought I would ask you to clarify.
Another thought: I wonder if part of the problem with CIs getting so bent out of shape over students taking this or that position on any given text is that there is a general position, especially in evangelicalism, that one’s interpretation of the Bible = doctrine. What I mean is that there is usually NO role for Tradition to play. To illustrate, I would imagine that if a student were to argue in an exegetical paper that Matthew or Luke created the virgin birth narrative ex nihilo (or even borrowed it from a tradition they received, but one that was not strictly historical in the particulars), the professor would have the student on trial in no time at all. Yet, this presupposes that the student CANNOT have another source for doctrine, i.e., Tradition. I know of critical scholars who reject the birth narratives as historical, but still affirm the virgin birth when they recite the Apostles Creed in church (or in private, or whatever). All this is to say, I don’t think it should be a given that one’s theology only takes it the Bible. Theological reflection is (should) be more complex than that.
August 30th, 2010 at 1:12 am
Hi Mike. Very carefully read and you raise a good point. Yes, by heresy I mean that which is against a given CI’s Doctrinal Statement. This would be an important point to make because one’s DS is not necessarily in line with Christian Orthodoxy. For example, the doctrine of Inerrancy is not in the early creeds.
On your second point, I’d have to think about that. Some interesting comments to ponder.
Thanks for chiming in.
August 30th, 2010 at 1:36 am
[...] Comments Rob Kashow on Why Confessional Institutions …Michael on Why Confessional Institutions …United Theological S… on Why Confessional [...]
August 30th, 2010 at 9:36 pm
[...] Why Confessional Institutions Are Problematic: Part 1 [...]
September 1st, 2010 at 4:56 pm
[...] Why Confessional Institutions Are Problematic: Part 1 [...]
September 3rd, 2010 at 10:47 am
Rob, you raise some very important questions that certainly deserve careful thought and reflection–both by individuals and institutes. I have ambivalent feelings about what you’ve said and what others have said in response.
On the one hand, the reality is that at a confessional school the approach is faith seeking understanding. There is the recognition that one has had an encounter with the Risen One which is always going to be a part of how he or she looks at life and ministry. It is not wise to suppress the witness of the Spirit who is constantly reminding us of that encounter and of God’s paternity over us.
At the same time, that essential of the Christian faith–trust in Jesus Christ as the one who died and rose again–is not all that confessional schools ask of their students or faculty. Many of the doctrinal commitments would not be things that are essentials for salvation; some are even peculiarities that set that school apart from others. It is these things that, in a confessional setting, must be vigorously examined. Of course, the essentials of the faith also must be vigorously examined, but always with a recognition that Christian epistemology is not entirely based on empirical evidence. Again, the witness of the Spirit is key here. At bottom, I am most comfortable with a confessional school that requires something of its faculty but leaves the questions open for its students. TEDS, I believe, has this model of education. There is no culture of fear because students know that they can disagree with their profs without fear of reprisals. It’s liberating yet broadly conservative, allowing for honest dialogue and genuine academic freedom.
On the other hand, it’s a mistake to think that non-confessional schools in America don’t have a Kethiv-Qere view of what beliefs are acceptable and which ones are not. All too many faculty at such schools put extreme pressure on students to conform to far less than an evangelical view of things. Without stating it, many such schools (or, more often, individual faculty in such schools) simply will not allow a student to earn a PhD unless he or she toes the party line. Deviation is fine within a naturalist orbit, but once someone crosses over and holds to a high bibliology or argues for the resurrection as a historical event, his or her days are numbered. Nowadays, the biggest issues at such schools are related to gender: homosexuals in ministry, women in church leadership, etc. Certain lines you just don’t cross. And, in many respects, the situation is worse than at confessional schools since the only way you know that you’re dabbling where you ought not is the professor’s ire or sabotaging of your success. At least in a confessional school you should have a good sense when you’ve crossed some line because there is always the doctrinal commitment that looms over every blogpost, course paper, and facebook comment.
In other words, confessional and non-confessional schools in America are often mirror images of each other, except that the starting presuppositions of one are decidedly different from those of the other.
My solution would be for conservatives to rise above the problems that they create for themselves—problems that you have outlined. Inform their constituencies; have their alumni offices put out disclaimers. Let folks know that a graduate from that institute has been adequately trained in biblical exegesis, theology, etc., but his or her views are their own. Churches need to do their homework to determine what such a person actually believes. Many liberal scholars have come out of conservative schools; as you pointed out, having students sign on the dotted line doesn’t guarantee anything about their fidelity to the school’s confession six months later. At bottom, I’m not going to wait around for liberal schools to fix their problems. Conservatives have to be pro-active to solve their own. But make no mistake: the grass is not necessarily greener anywhere else. Non-consequential neutral, objective scholarship in a context of mutual encouragement regardless of where the evidence leads is a myth. Whenever you truly pursue truth at all costs, you’ll always agitate someone.
September 4th, 2010 at 2:05 am
I’d essentially agree with this, and it serves as a good clarification. The problem, however, is that (as you allude to) your definition of what it means to be a Christian is a bit more bare bones than confessional institutes. And I’d agree that the grass is not necessarily greener on the other side. You may not get kicked out, but there still may be pressure in non-CI’s. But the fact that you don’t get kicked out of a non-CI makes all the difference!
I was not aware of the model put out by TEDS, but given the current climate within CI’s, I’d certainly endorse this as something CI’s should look to replicate.
September 3rd, 2010 at 7:48 pm
[...] …Week in Review: 09.0… on Why Confessional Institutions …Daniel B. Wallace on Why Confessional Institutions …JT Caldwell on “Following the Evidence… Rob’s now on [...]
September 4th, 2010 at 3:02 am
Rob, that’s not altogether true. If a person doesn’t hold the party line in several doctoral programs in the U.S.–and to some degree in the UK, he or she will not graduate. Belief in inerrancy is the first thing to go. And often, a person can’t even get into such a program because of coming from an evangelical school. Overall, UK schools are far more tolerant of evangelicals as long as they can defend their views. I think that should be the criterion on both sides of the pond.
September 4th, 2010 at 4:40 pm
Dan,
This is a point I’m willing to concede. But I’m still unconvinced that the playing field is equal for two reasons. First, I’m mostly referring to education on a master’s level, your comment refers to dissertations and doctoral programs. Personally, I cannot fathom an institution holding a DS over a students head in a doctoral program—something which I view to be a research degree and separate from doctrine. But this point really is an entire topic all together and could take things off track. Second, even on the doctoral level I see a difference. At the end of one’s time at a CI, (s)he has to acknowledge whether or not (s)he believes x, y, and z. This is a matter of integrity and an answer is required. At a non confessional doctoral program, one must certainly play the political game, I agree, but at least one is enabled to play the political game. Doing one’s homework is important, what profs to avoid, knowing what profs don’t have affinities for your theological perspective, etc. I realize the matter here is complex, but I can see it more possible to fly under the radar since you do not have to flat out affirm your beliefs in the end, beliefs that every professor hold and gives one no chance of graduating. Moreover, everyone’s heard of the stories you mention, but they seem few and far between. And when one gets a reputation of treating students in that way, it would be wise to avoid that PhD program with the plague.
I appreciate your conversation and I don’t meant to belabor this, but thought it necessary to clarify.
September 4th, 2010 at 3:46 am
As an example that may add some hope..?…I am confessionally Reformed Bapist, a member at a non-denominational community Bible Church, and attending a CI, the old WCF..not the updated one, who knows who and what I am, and accepted me just fine. The seminary is Whitefield Theological Seminary.
September 4th, 2010 at 10:01 pm
Rob, you are quite right that we’re talking apples and oranges here to some degree: master’s vs. doctoral programs. And your incredulity over a doctoral program holding a DS over a student’s head shows that the dangers you see in a master’s program should be significantly less in a doctoral program. I wish that were the case.
But again, you assume that one does not have to implicitly embrace certain views and implicitly reject certain views in a non-confessional school. That is usually not the case. You suggest that it is very rare that such doctrinal demands come to the surface. It is rare–IF one knows how to play the game. But my point is that non-confessional schools–or, more precisely, professors at non-confessional schools–have an unwritten confession/non-confession which they expect their students to adhere to. In this respect, it is far less healthy than a confessional school which makes its expectations explicit.
So, although what many evangelical institutes do is probably not the best approach to education (although TEDS and other evangelical schools that do not require their students to embrace any doctrinal statement are the exception), in many respects it is more honest and more noble than what many individual professors at non-confessional schools do. When you have to second-guess what the expectations are, you can find yourself in a world of hurt if you guess wrong.
Years ago, Wittenburg Door had a two-pane comic strip about theology students. The first pane showed students at a conservative school, complaining about the dress code, alcohol policy, doctrinal commitments, etc. They started having a ‘grass is greener’ moment. But the next pane showed students at a non-confessional or liberal school, complaining about the kethiv qere restrictions: boycott this wine because of unfair labor practices, don’t discuss women’s roles in the church from scripture because that will be oppressive to women, etc. In short, there is NO institute for theological studies on earth where everyone is neutral, where the expectations are defined only by pure research, and where people don’t have strong opinions about Jesus and the Christian faith. I agree with you that evangelical schools can and should do better, but don’t be so naive as to think that there won’t be enormous peer pressure on you in some other institute to conform to its unwritten faith and practice commitments.
November 11th, 2010 at 4:33 am
Rob,
I appreciate the questions you raised.
My first comment is that your concerns seem to confuse the nuance between allowing for honest questions and correcting false, anti-Christian beliefs. They are not antithetical to one another, but are two different things. Please correct me if I misunderstood, but you seem to assume that an institution would be unfair and narrow-minded in its “heresy trial.” If it is an institution made up of Christians, they will try their best to discipline or correct fellow Christians who are falling into false teachings. This is what Scripture says we must do out of love for God and for fellow Christians. If the professors or administrators squash honest questions asked sincerely, then they have a problem. If they correct people who are raising questions for the sake of creating doubt in others, then they have a Christian duty to do so.
My second comment is that your concerns address a rare situation rather than the common situation. It is problematic to argue that an entire institution should change its core values upon which it was founded for the sake of the minority of the students who might change their beliefs in the course of study. There are policies in place, even in secular institutions, for people who don’t agree with the core values of the institution, company, or school. But they are usually exercised in rare cases. Institutions are formed because of common values and beliefs. That is the very nature of an institution. People need to know and subscribe to the values and beliefs of the institution. If not, they are free to join or start other institutions that agree with their values and beliefs.
November 11th, 2010 at 4:58 am
John,
Thanks for chiming in. I’m in the midst of writing a lengthy paper with an upcoming deadline, so I’m afraid I will have to be brief. Some of the issues you raised may be addressed otherwise in the comments of this post, or the two subsequent posts which follow.
Concerning your first comment, I would pause at your mentioning at “allowing for honest questions.” How can one genuinely ask an honest question if one knows they will be kicked out if they come to hold that view. It does not foster an environment for asking honest questions. Moreover, in my assessment, a seminary is distinct from a local Church, which I see as having a disciplinary role re the Christian faith. To be sure, the CI is made up of Christians and they need to be mindful and concerned about their students.
Regarding the second comment, I am not suggesting an institution change its core values. I am suggesting they lift the requirement that a student must adhere to certain doctrines while being educated and before one can graduate. I strongly disagree with you that “people need to subscribe to the values and beliefs of the institution.” If this were the case, a student would never graduate. A student learns, disagrees with a tenant, runs off to another school, only to become educated on another issue, disagree, run off to another school, etc. What a nightmare for the people of faith.