Educator Craig Williford has an impressive curriculum vitae, including the presidencies of Trinity University and Denver Seminary. As he transitions to the presidency of Multnomah University, he also has an impressive vision for adapting Christian higher education to the changing needs of modern students. I sat down with Craig to pick his brain on cultural engagement, a new vision for "biblical universities," and the changing future of Christian education.
Paul: You've begun to use the term "biblical university," as opposed to both "Christian liberal arts" and "Bible college." Why?
Craig: It captures a new vision for Christian education. There's a real need to saturate Christian education with the Bible, while also allowing the Bible to inform the arts, humanities, and sciences. Typically, Christian liberal arts experiences minimize the number of hours and courses spent studying the bible—many only do 12-14 hours, some 18. That's not enough to saturate a student. It's enough to give an overview of the Bible, but not create the skills necessary to truly integrate the Bible with the liberal arts, and to give well-reasoned and thoughtful responses to key life questions.
In Christian liberal arts schools—which I'm a product of, taught in, and was president of—there's a lot of conversation, but little actual integration between Bible and theology, and the arts, sciences, and humanities. We're trying to figure out a way to elevate integration and ensure that our graduates have the necessary skills in both the Bible and humanities to engage culture effectively.
Today's big questions of life can't be answered solely by a Bible verse or by social/scientific studies or liberal arts. It has to be a 360 degree conversation.
Today's big questions of life can't be answered solely by a Bible verse or by social/scientific studies or liberal arts. It has to be a 360 degree conversation. And that's what we're trying to create in a "biblical university." We're trying to orient Bible students toward culture with increased integration into the liberal arts in order to engage culture in a grace filled, loving way. To take the Scripture not as a hammer—or a sledgehammer, which is more typical of much of Christian "engagement" today—but as the love and grace of Jesus Christ, and earn the right to be in the public dialogue without automatically being excluded.
So is that a break from the Bible college movement?
Yes it is. The Bible college movement focuses on Bible and theology, but has been too divorced from other disciplines that help inform how we interpret the Bible. Historically, this has always been the case. The sciences and the Bible have been seen as enemies, when actually they should be seen as companions.
For example, geneticists now are arguing that there can't be an original, literal Adam and Eve. The Bible clearly suggests that there was. Now, we can go back to the old way of "engaging," which is to become enemies, who don't listen and learn from each other, or we can get together to inform, study, pray, and reflect, and come up with thoughtful, true answers instead of just reacting. True integration. We don't think that the traditional Bible school program or the traditional liberal arts education deliver it as well as it can be done. We're going to try to do it better.
From a student's perspective, how will that impact information and formation?
I don't think the two can be separated. Sure. We're bringing both together, and approach truth in a holistic understanding of who God is. In the person of Christ and the inspired Scripture, we receive both information and formation. We're doing away with the dichotomy. They're not bifurcated.
What cultural needs do you think students will be equipped to meet through that integration?
Well, ask me in a few years. This is an innovation, and an experiment.
But I'm glad to speculate. It will really be related around the student. God's created each of us to be uniquely gifted and formed. I might engage culture differently than another student. There's no formulaic response. Instead, we need to examine the call of God and the student's gifting, as well as what we're trying to accomplish in culture as a community.
We can either respond to culture in a positive, personal way that gives us the right to speak, be present, and influence, or, we can do it in a way that causes us to be marginalized and cast out of the conversation.
For example, one of the strengths that I have is interacting with groups that aren't Christian, or are hostile to Christianity. I've led a Bible study for the last four years that includes atheists and the nonreligious, those of other faiths, and a diverse group of Christians. I've been able to teach the Bible in a very positive, open, and honest conversational setting. How do I engage culture as a person? Well, it's that way.
But all of us need to understand that we can either respond to culture in a positive, personal way that gives us the right to speak, be present, and influence, or, we can do it in a way that causes us to be marginalized and cast out of the conversation. Positive engagement is the skill I want students to learn. I want them to understand how they can influence their society and communities for Christ—and that will look different for every single student.
In general, what's your take on the state of Christian higher education right now?
In many ways, I think it's better than it's ever been.
That's not the prevailing opinion.
No, it's not. The reason for that is Christian higher education has confused education's form with its function.
Traditional, residential, full time education is still important. We need to provide a vibrant, exciting experience around that. But too few students are choosing that option. Christian higher education has not responded to that well, or seen the opportunities that creates. Instead, we've seen that as a threat. It is a threat—to the traditional form of college and seminary—but not to the function.
Today, cognitive scientists tell us that technology is rewiring the brains of young people. It's changing how they think and learn. So how does learning theory change, instead of merely seeing that as an enemy? How do we adapt?
Function is what's eternal. Form is ever-changing. That's where Christian higher education has failed. And let me stress that word—failed. I think it's failed in that way. But it still is seeing lives changed, seeing people come alive in their understanding of who God has created them to be, and to move forward through life. But we have to provide more and more opportunities for students to come in unique and different ways—based on how they can and want to come—instead of dictating to them how they ought to come learn. That's the future.
There's a growing trend for local churches to offer more advanced biblical education—classes, etc. How does formal education relate?
I think that's a great trend.
As do I. Who could hate the church making disciples?
Exactly. Biblical illiteracy is epidemic. I'm thrilled when any group tackles it. And the local church is remarkably poised to produce truly biblically literate Christians—not just those who get the right answers on a test, but are able to live out the themes of Scripture in their lives.
There are things that Christian higher education can provide that churches never can.
We can partner with them. But there are things that Christian higher education can provide that churches never can. For example: Intentional, full-time scholarship to research and write at the highest levels on issues that matter for the Christian community.
Christian higher education also has a unique opportunity to create an intense, formative experience where students are exposed to much more diversity of thought and opinion than they'll receive in any local congregation. And that exposure to different views is a very positive thing.
Will the change to a "biblical university" require a posture change for the stereotypical evangelical student?
I don't think there is such a thing as a stereotypical evangelical student anymore. But it will require a posture change for the stereotypical evangelical president. And professor.
Our personal security will be challenged. We'll have to try new things, and think in new ways. When I taught my first online course, I was really nervous. I didn't know if I could be a good teacher online. How we approach cultural engagement or the changing realities of education are more about personal security or insecurity than anything else, if I can be that bold. But I want to make clear that I'm learning that as much as anyone.
Let's shift our focus as we close. If formation is a key goal of Christian education, how do we preserve that in an age of digital disembodiment?
I think the future of theological education is in intentional, well-thought-through formative courses of study, whether online or offline.
I think the future of theological education is in intentional, well-thought-through formative courses of study, whether online or offline. However, classroom formation—even in a traditional residential campus program—isn't ever as effective as when a student is in full-time ministry and facing the formative challenges of service and praxis.
Now, I'm biased—I was a full-time pastor as I was a full time student in seminary. I was a full-time pastor while I was in my Ph.D. program. So I stumbled on this early. And I learned there that a school can be intentional, but it also has to recognize that intentional learning outcomes have to encompass spiritual and emotional—not just cognitive—intelligence. It's in the pivotal moments of ministry life that real formation takes place.
So what points of connection between the realities of ministry and the interpretation of the classroom will we imagine as we continue to grow as Christian educators and students? We'll have to see, but I'm excited for the challenge.
Paul Pastor is associate editor of Leadership Journal and PARSE.
