Why a Christian University?

Christian colleges dot our land. Most of them are affiliated with and partly supported by particular denominations. Most of them are in financial trouble, and a large number of them could immediately take more students without straining their facilities. Many offer an educational experience acceptable by secular educational standards; a few—a very few—offer work of exceptional quality in one field or another.

Why, then, is there talk of establishing a “Christian university”? Why not put the money into the hard-pressed Christian colleges already in existence?

Among the several answers that might be made, this writing considers only the one which emerges from this statement: it is not proposed to set up just another Christian college (or university, in the larger view) but a university of the highest academic excellence. This need is not filled by existing institutions. With full credit to those very few Christian colleges which enjoy the full and well-deserved respect of the world of secular higher education, the fact remains that such academic distinction is definitely the exception. What is looked for, then, is a university dedicated not only to the Faith but also to the highest and most rigorous academic standards, a university demanding the respect of the secular world of scholarship in the arts and sciences, and in the professions. At the core, solid, dynamic Christian unity; in the branches, solid and creative scholarship.

One need not profess Christianity to see the desperate need in American higher education for unity of purpose, for an agreed-to set of values. To teach facts without teaching values is worse than useless, it is dangerous. The power of knowledge put to evil use plagues our planet, and may plague it to death; it troubles the very footstool of God’s throne (Job 1:6). Few convictions are so deadly as that one which equates knowledge with virtue as well as with power.

And yet secular colleges and universities make little pretence that they still teach the ends to which the power of knowledge should be directed. Science, the keystone of our education, not only confesses, it asserts, that it has nothing whatever to do with value judgment. Long since lost is the implied unity of purpose implied by such phrases as “community of scholars” and “men and women joined in the fearless pursuit of truth.” In the now-standard jest, we have not so much universities as multi-versities sharing the same plumbing system—often suffering from edifice complexes. The wholeness and oneness once provided, at least in some measure, by common acceptance of Christian theology, philosophy, and ethics has exploded into fragments. A typical college student, taking five courses from five different instructors will, in any given week of attendance, hear either openly avowed or subtly implied five different value systems. (Among them, however, there may well be a clear, scholarly Christian point of view, for the situation is not so entirely black as some believe.)

But, it may be asked, is it possible to create a truly distinguished Christian university? Distinguished, that is, in the view of the world? Is there not something incompatible between true Christian education on the one hand and high standing in the secular world of scholarship on the other? Can one seek the approval of God and that of the secular world of scholarship at the same time?

Any full answer would be long, complex, and controversial. But one important facet of the answer is clear: every educator will be able to list offhand, in his own field of specialization, the names of many men who are eminent scholars and who are at the same time dedicated Christians. Gather enough of them together and the Christian university has its faculty. Typically, however, the most eminent of these men are now mostly to be found on the faculties of secular institutions. The existing avowedly Christian colleges have not attracted all the top Christian scholars.

Why not? Again, the answer would be long and controversial, but we may at least suggest a part of it by speaking of that sometimes bewildering thing, the “scholarly mentality.” (Remember, now, we are speaking of Christian education, not Christian evangelism.) That mentality demands a very specific kind of environment. Among the lesser things it demands are scholarly facilities (such as libraries and laboratories), the companionship of other dedicated scholars, encouragement by the administration of independent research, challenging and intellectually competent students, graduate-level teaching. But above all else it demands intellectual freedom.

Now, granted that “freedom to pursue the truth and to teach it without let or hindrance” may become merely a pious phrase, and granted that it even may be made a cloak to cover subversive intent, it yet suggests something absolutely essential to academic excellence. It is too often lacking at denominational colleges. When, in its recruitment of teachers, the Christian college demands subscription to a detailed code of conduct as well as to a basic statement of Christian faith and commitment, many Christian scholars decide that they can do their work better in the freer atmosphere of a secular institution. This is, of course, a problem which sets ganglions quivering, and has done so for some centuries. In its larger implications it plagued the apostolic Church. When all the talk is done, it adds up to this: no Christian university can hope to gather to it distinguished Christian scholars if it forgets the force of Peter’s question to the legalists at Jerusalem: “Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?” (Acts 15:10) Nor can it succeed if it forgets James’ ruling: “For it seemeth good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things …” (Acts 15:28).

Are we then to argue that a Christian university should require no more of its faculty members than that they be excellent scholars and vaguely devoted to “good things”? Not unless we attribute the same nonsense to Paul when he stood up against Peter (before Peter was, rather laboriously and at some trouble to God, enlightened on legalism) and when he stood up against the legalists at Jerusalem. It is beyond dispute that there are “necessary things,” the unalterable bases of our faith revealed in God’s inerrant Word, but we must not confuse these things with details of conduct. Indeed, it probably would be difficult to do better than to require assent to the articles of the Apostles’ Creed (taken for what they clearly say, without mental reservation and without ‘interpreting” them away) as the chief basis of Christian unity.

None of this line of thought is intended to deny that an individual’s conduct is part of his testimony, nor to deny the legitimacy and importance of supporting denominational colleges which, in details of conduct as well as in creedal statements, require conformity with what is most sincerely believed by members of the denomination. Rather, it is intended to distinguish between the denominational colleges which we now have and the kind of institution which is being proposed. Not all Christian scholars receive the missionary calling which leads them to serve in the more cloistered religious college. All honor—very great honor—to those who are so called. They often sacrifice distinguished careers on the altar of missionary service. But honor, too, to those who achieve eminence in the world of scholarship in secular institutions without for a moment compromising the “things necessary” to our Christian faith. It is these who must be attracted to a Christian university which seeks the highest academic reputation.

But there are students as well as teachers in the classrooms of our colleges, and the students, in their own academic excellence, must challenge and stimulate the teachers. This means that admissions standards must be set high. There must be no thought of substituting a “high degree of Christian commitment” for solid academic attainment, as demonstrated by scores made on such tests as are put out by the College Entrance Examination Board. Presumably, indeed, there should be no requirement that incoming students sign a statement certifying their Christian faith. The usual evidence bearing on good moral qualities will be sufficient, for surely one of the greatest services to be performed by the proposed Christian university will be to introduce uncommitted students to the intellectual validity, ethical grandeur, practical applicability, and unifying comprehensiveness of Christian philosophy. They thus may be led to the ultimate value, the discovery of the saving power of the Lord Jesus Christ, who alone is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. But this last is evangelism. The proposed Christian university must first and foremost be an educational institution.

The world has long sought to exhibit Protestant Christianity as essentially anti-intellectual, and all too often there has seemed to be evidence to show it. The proposed Christian university will confront many problems, but the chief one will be to hold high and clear the two basic characteristics sought: deep Christian faith and unity, and academic excellence. Fortunately, they are not incompatible.

FOURTH ANNIVERSARY OBSERVATIONS ON OUR THRUST FOR THE GOSPEL

We shall endeavor to sidestep the temptation to self-congratulation on reaching our fourth anniversary as a magazine. The past months have seen gains far beyond our original hopes, as ministers and laymen have responded warmly to the ministry of CHRISTIANITY TODAY. Our well-wishers tell us that the publication has now become a strong spokesman of broad-guage, historic Christianity in our day.

We are deeply grateful to God for the privilege of glorifying his Son through these columns. The editors are heartened by cordial support voiced in letters from pastors and laymen over a wide band of the ecclesiastical spectrum. We are sensitive, too, to thoughtful criticisms that have come our way from numerous directions. We are aware that not all readers of CHRISTIANITY TODAY agree with our views, and to these too we would send greeting, with a sincere admonition to follow us only insofar as you see us following Christ.

Despite the handicap of his theological climate, the late Peter T. Forsyth seems to have spoken some words which may still be taken to heart: “We need the humiliation in which we forget about religion, the faith in which we forget about either faith or works, the sanctity that has no knowledge of its own holiness. We need an experience of Christ in which we think everything about the Christ and not about the experience. We need that preachers shall not keep demanding either a faith or love that we cannot rise to, but shall preach a Christ that produces and compels both. Knowledge may give you convictions, and thought ideas; conscience will give you principles, and the heart sentiments; but that soul-certainty, that saved certainty which is Eternal Life, can only arise from something very objective and positive, which turns the truths of the preacher to the word of authority, sets him in the Evangelic succession, and clothes him with the apostolic power” (Positive Preaching and the Modern Mind, 1907, pp. 181, 195).

To take these words seriously, we must place our entire effort at the foot of the Cross of Calvary. Our magazine, now the interdenominational publication with the largest circulation in the world to the Protestant ministry and lay leadership, really has no claim to an independent existence at all. We exist for one purpose only, and that purpose is to speak for him whose we are and whom we serve. We covet as our goal a magazine that will cause its readership to reflect upon Christ and not upon the magazine. There is no “becoming modesty” here; it is too late in the day for such affectation. We are determined either to let Christ speak to our age through these pages or to strip the ribbons from our typewriters.

Somewhere in the United States or Canada or Europe or Australia or South America or Asia or Africa, this fourth anniversary issue will soon find itself on the study desk of a harassed and beleaguered pastor. He will look at its cover out of one comer of his eye, and then his back hair will bristle ever so slightly. “These fellows think they have all the answers,” he will mutter to himself. “They use big words to tell us to preach the Bible, and the simple Gospel, and then claim that will solve everything. They ought to live just one day with my problems!”

As we begin our fifth year we are more conscious than ever that we do not ourselves have all the answers, and that there is abundant room for earnest, creative thought in Protestant theology today. The reader will often find in these pages different perspectives within a basically Christian point of view. Yet some things are fixed and final, and in our time Christians ought not to pride themselves on how little they believe. Thus, Forsyth learned for himself, and warned his contemporaries in words that seem strangely up-to-date, that the quintessence of Christian faith is not simply the “Word made flesh” but the “Son made sin.” “The incarnation,” he declared, “has no religious value but as the background of the atonement.” There is much more of the vast biblical heritage that our generation needs desperately to rediscover.

As we seek to enrich the ministry with the fruits of evangelical scholarship, we are increasingly aware of the strategic significance and usefulness of CHRISTIANITY TODAY. We have reason to believe that many Christian ministers are preaching a healthier, heartier, more convincing Gospel, with a new kinetic power, because their faith has been buttressed through the reading of these pages. We feel that many laymen are stronger and more useful to God because they have found here nurture in the faith once delivered to the saints. Hardly a day passes but our circulation department receives a gift subscription for a pastor or lay friend, or a request that sample copies be sent with an invitation to subscribe to a list of alert prospective readers. We treasure this bond of interest and concern, and are heartened by expressions that CHRISTIANITY TODAY has become the most regulative influence for evangelical Christianity in contemporary Protestantism.

The heavy emphasis in each issue upon the authority of Holy Scripture has not resulted from an editorial contract to eulogize or idolize a book. We worship the triune God and none other. But we hold the Word of God precious. We have discovered also that whenever the Church has relaxed her fidelity to Scripture, she has ended by corrupting her doctrine.

Depending on prayer, we shall endeavor to continue an editorial policy in which the Christian message is fearlessly set forth, and in which differences of viewpoint are discussed at what we hope is a high and noble level. We have stockpiled no ammunition and our guns are trained on no human target. We desire to win men to the evangelical apostolic faith and to do so in the spirit of Christian love; and we join hands with believers everywhere in this greatest task on earth.

FACING MODERN WORLD PROBLEMS WITH EFFECTIVE GLOBAL STRATEGY

Probing a world breakthrough for evangelism, 34 Protestant leaders assembled at the invitation of evangelist Billy Graham in Montreux, Switzerland, on the threshold of his European crusades, together faced perplexing problems of Christian global strategy. Reflecting evangelical dynamisms inside and outside the World Council of Churches, they prayed and conversed three days about God’s program for the nations and asked the Lord of Harvest to reorient their personal ministries for an effective battleplan for the world. Dr. Graham and Dr. Tom Allan of Glasgow, came fresh from a WCC consultation on evangelism in Bossey at which Graham spoke and Allan was chairman.

First the group turned to the Holy Scriptures to discover biblical incentives for evangelism. These things impressed them:

The apostles evangelized the known world in little more than a half century.

Christ still sends disciples into the world as the Father sent the Son.

The Church faces no experience in the world today without some precedent or parallel in the Acts of the Apostles.

The promise of the Holy Ghost’s daily infilling for earnest seekers is still valid.

The Bible says that sinners are eternally doomed apart from new life in Christ.

Abundant life now as well as eternal life hereafter are dependent upon acceptance of Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord.

The hope of the Lord’s return assures the triumph of righteousness in history.

Among disturbing signs the Montreux confreres recognized:

Five per cent of the world population is still unreached, and to reach them will require translating energies of 5,000 more linguists.

Evangelicals are not effectively united for maximal efficiency in their thrust and tend to individualize the Gospel as independents rather than to recognize the significance of a Christian community witness to the secular community.

Wide reaches of unregeneracy within the Church, requiring revival within as well as evangelism without.

Growing need for stricter church discipline.

The need of sound evangelical schools, since the Church’s condition reflects the theological colleges and seminaries.

Failure to prepare the Christian community for the possibility of suffering and persecution as consonant with the purpose of God in history.

The problem of communicating the Gospel to intellectuals and the masses outside the orbit of church influence.

Among hopeful signs these Christian leaders saw:

More than 135 nations are open to the Gospel. Only Communist countries and four Moslem lands are now closed. Not a single new nation has closed its doors to missionaries.

The missionary task force is larger than ever, and the Church is witnessing the biggest harvest ever in increasing percentages of memberships. In some sections of Africa, the gain runs 12 per cent and is outstripping population growth.

Most missionaries evacuated from the Congo are ready to return as order is restored.

After the United States, Brazil may be the most promising field for evangelism.

Communism has knocked out Buddhism in Tibet, has upset long-entrenched pagan traditions in China.

Spontaneous lay activity, while still spotty, is emerging on mission fields.

The growing prospect of non-Communist revolt against Romanism in Latin America.

Emergence of an evangelical research and resource center for combatting cults.

Persecution has stimulated growth and fidelity to the Bible, as in Colombia.

The appearance of CHRISTIANITY TODAY and other literature lending theological vigor to the evangelical thrust.

Among positive convictions:

God wants His leaders to be holy and obedient men, not great men.

Evangelism as incidental and peripheral must yield to saturation evangelism, already ventured in Nicaraugua.

The Asian appeal of the Gospel is intensified by the fact that Jesus was an Asian and that Christianity has an Asian history.

The evangelistic message must not stop with “pie in the sky” but must clarify the Christian-versus-Communist message for this life and for this world.

Missionary paternalism impedes development of a virile evangelical leadership by nationals on some distant fields.

Mass evangelism is legitimate and imperative, and represents a dynamism more potent than Communist manipulation of the masses.

Evangelism must be reinforced by a return to biblical and systematic theology.

The need for more and better literature to press the Christian claim in the war of ideas.

The urgency of facing youth with the necessity of total Christian commitment.

Such challenging findings deserve the thoughtful consideration of Christians everywhere. They should be a fresh incentive to action. The fields are “white unto harvest.”

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.