Introduction

Recently, I stumbled onto 2 faculty colleagues in the midst of a heated debate over lunch. The topic was Christian higher education but in perhaps its most practical incarnation. As I joined in, these professors at a Christian liberal arts college were debating why the one's own son had chosen to attend the state university instead of the college where they both taught. The colleague wanted his friend's son to return because the young man was interested in his discipline and because he had known his friend's son for years. But the father reported that his son was not only doing well in his studies but was growing spiritually as well. Would his son grow as much at the Christian college? The answer was not clear; so why fix what was not broken? For my part, I had never attended a Christian educational institution in 20 years of my own education, yet I had given nearly 20 years of my own professional career to Christian education. In the end we reached no conclusion. It seemed that perhaps the jury is still out!

But such ambivalence startled me coming as it did from veteran faculty at a Christian college. I believe many or most of those involved in Christian higher education want to do Kingdom business. We do not want to be involved merely in preparing students to go out into the world to become standard evangelical Christian American (SECA) yuppies. Kingdom values are significantly different from, even contrary to, worldly values. Unless this difference makes a difference then Christian colleges become no different from so many others, they struggle to compete, and perhaps ought not exist at all. The struggle and sacrifice made to keep them open would be unjustified. We would all be better advised to become "salt and light" in secular--and perhaps academically superior--institutions. I believe we want to be associated with Christian colleges only if such colleges recognize their distinctive mission, see their niche in higher education generally, know what they can do better than any other institutions....AND are prepared to accomplish that mission, fill that niche, be that institution.

Frankly, I wonder today whether there are many Christian colleges where there is much chance of this happening. The potential genius of Christian higher education is great but for the most part such colleges fall far short of these aspirations. Instead, the philosophy of education adopted is reactionary. It reacts to the perceived academic weakness of Christian institutions earlier this century. There is a stronger sense of what ought to be avoided than of what ought to be pursued. All too often Christian colleges adopt the agendae of secular higher education and struggle to play "catch-up" in someone else's game.

But what exactly is this "unfulfilled genius", this distinctive mission or niche? It seems to me it includes several things. But I would like to focus on two which I believe are among the toughest not only to accomplish, but even to describe. They are tough even to describe because they involve subtle distinctions I myself struggle to make and understand.

I believe one can get at the genius of Christian higher education by asking disarmingly simple questions: "What kind of student do we want to produce?" "What kind of faculty member does it take to produce such students?" "How does one develop such faculty?"

What Kind of Student Do We Want to Produce?

Consider two alternatives. On the one hand, some Christian institutions merely provide "hot house" environments in which students are indoctrinated with "answers" to questions they have never even asked! Students emerge from high school with a penchant for neat answers; typically unacquainted with the blood, sweat, and tears of real questions. Such students are often passionately committed to "defending the Truth" and may be quite bold in their participation in important social and political issues. Their courage and involvement are commendable. But in the language of cognitive psychology their patterns of thinking are dualistic--issues are presented and resolved in facile "black and white" categories. When Christian colleges cater to this, the graduates are dogmatic. This is not enough.

On the other hand, secular universities too often provide "sterile" environments. Here students often are successfully provoked to ask important real questions. But they are rarely offered any help in finding answers! From an educator's point of view it is surely an improvement to have questions without answers rather than answers without questions; but it still falls short. Again in the language of cognitive psychology such students have progressed beyond simple dualistic thinking but are abandoned in the multiplicity of relativism. Through the multifarious influence of professors and peers from a wide range of backgrounds they come to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of opposing points of view. This step is important and represents an improvement over uncritical dogmatism; life's issues are simply not black and white. But it can leave them paralyzed, non-committal, and hesitant to take a stand. In the language of ethics their training has been in cognitive but not virtue ethics; they may know what is right but do not actually tend to do it. Graduates of such institutions are often sceptical or cynical. And this too is not enough.

But the graduates of the Christian college ought to be neither dogmatists nor sceptics. To go beyond only the first is mere reactionism. The genius of the Christian college is its aim to produce graduates who go beyond both; they are persons who embody critical commitment. They go beyond dogmatism in applying the best critical tools available to the real questions of life. They go beyond scepticism in their willingness to be committed in spite of doubt. They are persons who recognize the limitations of human understanding and yet are prepared to take a stand and even stake their lives. In the language of ethics they not only are cognitively competent to assess complex real-world problems in the light of Christian principles, but have the character virtues that equip them to hold their conclusions gently while acting with decisiveness and passion. It is the creative tension between mind and heart.

Of course in the first place the problem with such an aim is that it may very well be unattainable. It may be developmentally out of the reach of most college age students and may in fact not even characterize most college faculty!

But a greater problem arises from a subtlety I alluded to earlier. Critical commitment can easily be confused with dogmatism and so cognitive development beyond multiplicity can easily be confused with regression to dualism. For many practical purposes the person who is critically committed, can be mistaken for someone who is dogmatically committed. For example, protesters in the same demonstration march can be there for very different reasons and with very different states of mind. One sees no alternatives; everything is in black and white. A commitment is made necessarily. Another sees many alternatives and the weaknesses of her own view; everything is in complex shades of gray. A commitment is made nevertheless. Given this subtle distinction, a problem arises. As a professor from a teacher's college put it to me at a conference where I spoke in Zimbabwe, "What is the difference between educating for critical commitment and indoctrinating?"

I am not very sure about how to answer that question, but I am quite sure that trying to answer it is an important task for Christian colleges and trying to help students achieve it is an important--even essential--part of their distinctive mission.

The key to characterizing critical commitment and to distinguishing it from either dogmatism or scepticism I believe lies in the neighborhood of "epistemological humility". As one of my colleagues put it one day in one of those classic hallway conversations, "How we hold truth is as important as what we hold to be truth."

Christian college graduates should hold their commitments with a gentleness that is tolerant. It should be open-minded and self-critical. It should manifest itself in a listening spirit; slow to draw conclusions and patient with complications and alternative points of view. In short, it should border on the attitude of good philosophers which Descartes described as methodological scepticism.

Yet it must be passionate commitment. It must be courageous commitment; courageous like Tillich's "courage to be in the face of the fear of non-being". It is the courage of fear and trembling. It is the courage of Abraham with Isaac on the slopes of Mt. Moriah. In short, it should border on the attitude of good scientists which Thomas Kuhn describes as methodological dogmatism.

But if even describing this aim to produce graduates who are critically committed is so difficult, how much harder is it to answer the question of how Christian colleges can accomplish this aim. Again I am not sure. As my African friend warned, it may look suspiciously like indoctrination. It is surely the task of faculty at Christian colleges to explore this question too.

Part of this issue is a very old one. It is the question of educating for virtue which Aristotle addressed long ago. Contemporary ethical theory has rediscovered virtue ethics after generations of attention to what might be called cognitive ethics. In a nutshell, there is more to morality than just knowing what is good or bad, right or wrong. One must also have the character (virtues) which include the dispositions actually to do the good. The virtuous person is the one who has both knowledge and willingness to do the good. That is surely an important part of what it means to be critically committed. Aristotle was concerned with how one educates to this end and the inculcation of habits played a significant part in his approach. He understood the importance of role modeling in forming habits and building character. And his insights in this regard still stand.

I believe Christian faculty understand the importance of role modeling and it often even figures into our explicit statements of educational philosophy. We take modeling to be a distinctive of our institutions and that is as it should be. But I believe there is much more we could do to structure our institutions so that this important--albeit ancient--insight is embodied more thoroughly in our educational process to the end of producing students who are critically committed.

But fortunately, Aristotle is not the last word on educating for critical commitment. Cognitive and moral development theory suggests that transitions will be stimulated by cognitive and moral dissonance. I take these to include experiences which challenge--even threaten--the prevailing modes of thinking students use. Such experiences draw out implications of student's current thinking to conclusions which are either contradictory to other beliefs they hold or at least distasteful to them. When embedded in a supportive context these disequilibrating experiences engender growth.

Consider the following possibilities. In the first place, it seems to me that exposure to ethnic and cultural diversity might perform the task of provoking such dissonance and consequently such development. These days in higher education there are many who advocate cross-cultural exposure for its obvious pragmatic benefits. For example, it equips students to face a world of dramatically changing demographics. But it seems to me that if such experiences are truly immersion experiences which challenge and even threaten a student's prevalent point of view they will result in the kind of development I am describing here. Liberal arts are intended to liberate, and that means liberation from parochial points of view. Diversity of cultural experience--whether national or international--contributes significantly to that liberation and to development of critical commitment. Such educational opportunities must be essential parts of the curriculum of the Christian liberal arts college.

A second practical example arises when one considers the pedagogical implications of seeking to produce students who are critically committed. The approach one adopts in dealing with one group of students cannot serve students at all stages.

For example, in most of my introductory courses in philosophy I deal with students who have come from high school and continue in a very dualistic black and white way of thinking. Questions have right and wrong answers and authority has long been the chief epistemological starting point. For such students, I believe the method of playing devil's advocate is helpful in challenging their dogmatic belief. Their views must be threatened and they must be thrown into a kind of cognitive crisis. With luck, by the time they have been in philosophy a while however they have made the transition to multiplicity and are as adept at picking apart positions as their professors. They now see the strengths of positions they would never before have entertained and the weaknesses of positions they once thought invulnerable. They have clearly advanced in their thinking but to leave them there is to leave the job half done. My advanced students do not benefit from my continuing use of devil's advocacy. To progress further, they need to hear their professor profess something. They need to learn what it means to take a position in the midst of uncertainty. Naturally, there must be arguments for the positions I profess--they wouldn't settle for less--but they must be challenged to get beyond the idea that intellectual sophistication means cynically believing in nothing. The pedagogy aimed at provoking the dualist will only perpetuate cynicism in the more advanced student. While the pedagogy aimed at bringing the advanced student to critical commitment may only confirm the beginning student in their dogmatism.

The catch of course in making this shift of pedagogy is that students do not develop at the same rate and classes sometimes contain students in a number of stages. And in practical terms the difference between the commitment of the dualist and that of those who are critically committed is not easily discernible. One can see the importance of fine tuning the techniques used if we are to produce critically committed students.

What Kind of Faculty Does it Take to Produce Such Students?

It seems to me that what we need in Christian colleges are integrative scholars. But the word 'integrative' has been abused for so long it has become empty. Consequently, the meaning I would like to give to the term may be as easily misunderstood as the subtle distinction between dualistic and critically committed cognitive development states.

In recent years in Christian higher education, the word 'integration' has come to be synonymous with mediocre dabbling. To many, it referred to courses which were superficial in content and perhaps used for quicker more "efficient" fulfillment of general education courses which students viewed as nuisances. Even the faculty staffing them often also viewed them as nuisances; peripheral to more important teaching responsibilities in their discipline. For students, such courses were to be "gotten out of the way". And the faculty assigned to such courses often barely tolerated them. Younger faculty might view such assignments as the inevitable price of their junior status. Older faculty who appeared to care about such courses were euphemistically called "generalists" but usually suspected of inferior academic credentials or abilities.

The academic quality of Christian colleges was already questionable because of the "training orientation" with which many of them began, because the religious agenda frequently took precedence, and because even Christian faculty themselves began to believe that all other things being equal, in a "buyers market" the best faculty would gravitate to the more prestigious institutions. The teaching of "integrative" courses seemed only to confirm this scepticism. "Holy shoddy is still shoddy."

Because much of this description is still true, the prospects for resurrecting enthusiasm for "integration" may seem dim. Anyone who calls for renewed attention to integration will be seen as retrogressive. Just as the call to lead students to a kind of commitment beyond multiplicity and relativism can be construed as a call to step backward, the call to develop faculty (and courses) which are integrative can also be seen as a step backward to dabbling not forward. Christian colleges have been in a reactionary mode and have long struggled to escape the whiff of mediocrity. Their leaders have assumed the path ahead lay in the direction of research universities or at least in the direction of prestigious 4 year institutions where faculty were expected to pursue research along narrow disciplinary lines. The call to cultivate faculty who are "integrative" and courses which are "integrative" smells like a step backward.

But I believe that integration properly understood--like critical commitment--is a step forward not backward. It goes beyond the research model and not backward to integration as mediocre dabbling. It goes beyond reactionism. And I believe that a clear understanding of this goal will facilitate Christian colleges to discover what it is they can do better than any other institutions; to discover the genius of Christian higher education.

But I must unpack what I mean by "integration". The kind of integration I believe must characterize faculty in Christian higher education is a three-fold integration. First, it is integration of disciplines. Second, it is integration of values and faith with learning. Finally, it is integration of theory and praxis. 

1. INTEGRATION OF DISCIPLINES: Integrative scholarship is usually understood to mean inter-disciplinary work. While such studies came into vogue in the late 1960s and early 1970s, they seemed to fall out of fashion again in the 1980s. The problems posed for scholars in a discipline are often narrow ones determined by the reigning paradigm and couched in the jargon of the discipline. And the solutions available to scholars are likewise constrained by that paradigm and its set of acceptable methodologies and solution types. But real world problems rarely fit such artificial disciplinary molds. These disciplinary frameworks typically abstract problems from their context. But as A.N. Whitehead has said, "Abstraction always involves loss" The artificiality of the problem is reflected in the inadequacy of the solutions. Some integrative work of this interdisciplinary type has "taken hold" and become established. For example, physics has benefited from its increasing use of mathematics, chemistry from its use of physics, biology from its use of chemistry, and even sociology from its use of biology. Mathematical physics, physical chemistry, biochemistry, and sociobiology are almost disciplines in their own right; hardly requiring a hyphen anymore. But of course these hybrids largely share a common scientific methodology and when they are broadened too far--as say in the case of ecology--the "discipline" and its practitioners can easily be marginalized. Yet ecology addresses precisely the kind of real global problems most pressing in our world today.

But of course there is natural resistance to such inter-disciplinary work by most faculty--whether at Christian institutions or not. But why? These faculty have largely been trained at secular institutions where the paradigm and agenda of their disciplinary guild predominated. It seems characteristic of graduate training that it reproduces the framework and priorities of the graduate faculty.

But resistance to inter-disciplinary study does not arise exclusively from faculty graduate training. For young faculty this factor may predominate but for older faculty there is a kind of entrenchment which occurs. Course syllabi have been prepared and presented for many years. Basic methodological issues have been settled and changes are often merely fine tuning. The motivation for changing either course topics or research topics is not strong; especially when it would involve considerable effort to learn a new jargon, a new conceptual framework, and to reconcile such with the concepts and language of their primary discipline.

Integration means integration of disciplines and it is essential because real human problems are like that. For Christian scholars to indulge in artificial problems can become just so much intellectual self-gratification; an inadequate substitute for the real thing. But integration is more than integration of disciplines.
 
 

2. INTEGRATION OF VALUES AND FAITH WITH LEARNING: For Christian scholars, integration also means submitting intellectual pursuits to the demands of their faith. I have purposely put the matter in this somewhat offensive way. Naturally, there will be and must be not only a shaping of one's discipline by one's faith but of one's faith by one's discipline; the latter is what Christian scholarship is all about. But it seems to me that in the final analysis what distinguishes the Christian scholar from the secular scholar is that no scholarly methodology whether scientific or otherwise can be allowed to become a panacea. No disciplinary analysis can ever become a world view. In epistemological terms, no truth of reason is complete unless it acknowledges and accommodates Revelation. This need not entail any fear whatsoever; for Christian scholars have every confidence that all truth is God's truth. But a Christian's recognition of the limitations of human understanding must instill the epistemological humility of critical commitment as described above. And this humility is the essence of the intellectual submission I am describing.

This submission to a higher allegiance opens the Christian scholar to integration first in the interdisciplinary sense by putting the limits of one's discipline in plain view. But second, it also requires that the Christian scholar always be concerned to move back and forth between the first principles of disciplinary theory and method and the fundamental tenets of faith; cross-checking for consistency and searching for mutual clarification.

One may attempt to justify Christian scholarship in several ways, each with its own danger. For example one may start with the belief that God created humans so they might worship Him and enjoy Him forever. Christian scholarship is only one way of worshipping God. But the danger here is that the pride and self-gratification derived from solving only artificial problems set by the gamemasters of a disciplinary guild can become a false substitute for true worship and can never suffice to justify the Christian scholar's work. Or, for example, one may begin with the view that the people of God are charged to do the work of the Kingdom. But if that means proclaiming liberty to the captives, and giving sight to the blind, then scholarship isolated from faith is all the more unacceptable. There are no doubt many other arguments. But I believe it is inescapable that Christians involved in scholarship must bring their faith to bear on their work. That is at least part of what we mean when we understand Christian faith to be a world view. And that is the second form of integration I believe must characterize the Christian scholar.

What this integration of values and faith with learning will look like is a complex question without any single answer. Must it always involve differences of substance or even of methodology from secular scholars? Or will it rather involve merely matters of scholarly integrity and attention to the ethical implications of one's work? But these questions are not the subject of this essay. And the answers are partly the responsibility of every Christian scholar; to be worked out over a lifetime of integrative scholarship. My point is merely to make clear that integration includes integration of values and faith with learning.

Yet, integration is also more than just integration of disciplines and integration of values and faith with learning.
 
 

3. INTEGRATION OF THEORY AND PRAXIS: I have already argued that the integration of disciplines is enhanced when scholars address real human problems rather than contrived ones. But making such problems a priority also enhances a third and final kind of integration I believe is important for the Christian scholar; the integration of theory and practice. By this I mean that Christian scholars ought to be concerned both with the direct tangible results of their work and also with the direction their work sets for the rest of the Body of Christ.

In the first place, many have said academics do not understand the "real world". They live in ivy-covered towers. To the extent this is true, academia cannot prepare students adequately. For Christian scholars to fulfill their obligation to attend to the needs of the student as a whole person, they must give attention to the way their scholarship may or will make a difference in the daily lives of real people.

But in the second place, the Christian scholar has an unusual responsibility to the Body of Christ. Just as each Christian individually is gifted in order to contribute to the building up of the Body of Christ I believe Christian institutions have special functions to play in the work of the Body of Christ world-wide. Christian institutions of higher education have a responsibility I believe to provide leadership to the rest of the Body of Christ. Not, of course, the leadership of Christ Himself, who is Head of the Body. But nevertheless a leadership which conceptualizes the point of view of the Church and makes it accessible not only for others to see but for critical self-examination. In this latter capacity, Christian scholars must not fail to draw out the practical implications of theoretical systems so that the Church more generally can see what to expect if those theories are pursued in practice.

For example, scholars in the field of education must ask first how their faith entails a view of human nature. That in turn sets parameters on which theories of education will be theoretically consistent with faith. But that much is so far only integration of values and faith with learning. Beyond that, those in education must lead the Church in asking how various theories of education will be implemented in schools everywhere. What methods will likely be used? What effects will result? Will those results produce problems?

Or for example, it seems to me that Christian scholars ought to take the lead in examining the practical implications of various economic theories, of various patterns in social behavior, of movements in theology, and so on. One cannot travel far--especially in the "two-thirds" world today--without coming to feel that scholarship which makes little or no difference to others besides the scholars themselves is either bankrupt or at least a luxury the Church must watch carefully.

Sadly, we do not see enough vision or courage of leadership arising in Christian institutions of higher education. Our scholars are too often paralyzed by their awareness of the complexity of theoretical matters to take a position or even offer clarification of options on practical matters.

But if these Christian scholars do not lead, the Christian community in general is surely not any better equipped to address such matters. And all the caveats, qualifications, and paralysis of Christian scholars will not make the practical issues any less pressing. In William James' terms they are "momentous and forced". They cannot be avoided. Not to decide will still be a decision too. If Christian scholars do not take seriously their potential for giving vision and leadership to the Church on how the best scholarship can inform practical decisions, they will have forfeited their peculiar responsibility in the Body of Christ, and the Church will be just that much less able to fulfill its calling as salt and light in the world.
 
 
So these then are the three features of the genuine integration I have in mind: integration of disciplines, integration of values and faith with learning, and integration of theory and praxis. My concern is that while many Christian institutions of higher education (like their respectable secular counterparts) do get beyond the mediocre "dabbling" formerly associated with "integration", they fall short of this genuine kind of integration. In the development of students, it is not enough for Christian institutions to mimic the secular university and move the student beyond dualism and dogmatism only to leave them relativists and sceptics. Likewise, in the development of faculty it is not enough for Christian faculty to mimic their secular counterparts and move beyond the mediocre dabbling which formerly passed for integration only to remain there and fall short of their true potential for genuine integration. To achieve that kind of integration is to get beyond reactionism. And it is to find the unique niche in which Christian institutions of higher education can flourish. It is to discover the genius of Christian higher education.

Sadly, too many Christian institutions escape mediocrity only to fall short of their genius. Sadly, they adopt the agendae of secular professional guilds and miss their special calling. They adopt a research model of scholarship in which their institutions are hard put to compete and which ironically is under serious attack even in secular academe.

At a meeting of the American Association for Higher Education (AAHE) in San Francisco, the late Dr. Ernie Boyer of the Carnegie Commission reported on their study entitled "The New American Scholar". The study calls for a redefinition of scholarship in America. That new definition calls for a kind of scholarship which apart from the dimension of faith and learning overlaps significantly with what I have described here as genuine integration. It calls secular higher education beyond the narrow model of the research university which predominates in academia today and which sets the agendae I have described above. It calls secular institutions to something which in many aspects ought to be the genius of Christian institution of higher education. It emphasizes teaching. It underscores the importance of interdisciplinary work. It even calls for attention to praxis and not just theory.

The Chronicle of Higher Education cites fears among faculty that a stronger push for research will threaten the distinctives of even secular liberal arts campuses.

"They fear a new hybrid: the small research college...[Some colleges] see faculty scholarship as a way to build a national reputation and distinguish themselves among relatively similar--and expensive--colleges. In addition, young faculty members fresh out of graduate school are eager to continue their research and maintain a higher professional profile...The campus climate at such institutions is changing. Interdisciplinary...seminars ...have been threatened by lack of faculty interest. In barely definable ways the campus is different...you cut out all the contemplative stuff...you find yourself teaching hysterically and doing research hysterically. Collegiality has been lost along the way. [Discussions of the changes have] hastened the deterioration of morale. It's quite possible to take an excellent teaching college and turn it into a mediocre research institution. The best evidence that professors are doing more research is that campus parking lots are empty on Tuesdays and Thursdays because many faculty members work at home those days."

Former president of Harvard University, Derek Bok, added his support to this concern,

"The quality of education and teaching are at risk in a research university because the rewards of society are so powerful in the direction of research....Society is voting heavily in favor of research, rather than education in where it is putting its money and all of the prizes, the visibility, the excitement....we have to be more imaginative in figuring out how to develop incentives that will ensure greater attention to teaching."

What a tragic irony it would be were Christian institutions to achieve a long sought academic "legitimacy" only to discover the rules had changed and in fact had changed in a direction which emphasized some of the same characteristics (e.g. teaching and integration) Christian scholars had previously sought to escape. What a shame if Christian scholars finally decide to play what is largely a "research game" in which our institution's limited resources makes us less able to compete just as many secular scholars are abandoning that game to play one in which we can excel.

So the kind of integrative scholars I have in mind are those who are clearly competent in their own disciplines. They have shown themselves able to address the agenda of their professional guild in graduate study and beyond. Furthermore, they keep themselves abreast of their discipline. But they move beyond the agenda of their guild whenever possible to address real world issues. By this I have in mind issues that actually worry the people on the street and in the pew. And by this I have in mind issues which arise from or require different answers because of Christian assumptions about God, man, and nature.

As with their role in promoting development among students, integrative Christian scholars do not have less to do than their secular counterparts, but more. While their agenda must be distinct from that of the guild, they must remain "up to speed." Otherwise, the Christian faculty member forfeits the right to be called sociologist, philosopher, biologist and with it forfeits the foundation for integration. Integration must be integration of something. When faculty fall out of touch with the agenda of their discipline and its questions and approaches, their integration reverts to dabbling.

How Does One Create a Faculty of Integrative Scholars?

It is presumptuous to undertake an answer to this question. That is because there is no single answer and Christian faculty everywhere are working out the answer in their own lives every day.

I do however want to leave a few suggestions which seem to me worth pursuing because they target some of the specific goals I have outlined above. And otherwise this very essay might be even more vulnerable than it already is to the criticism that it does not integrate theory and practice. But I hope any weaknesses in my particular suggestions do not detract from the principles above.

1. Faculty should be urged to address real human problems not only in their own research but in the content of the classes they teach. As I have already suggested above, when scholars deal with real problems instead of artificial ones they are much more likely to achieve all three aspects of integration I have described. Real human problems usually bridge many disciplines. Real human problems almost inevitably have practical dimensions. And real human problems may more likely integrate values and faith with learning both by avoiding or reducing the often selfish motives for solving purely theoretical problems and perhaps opening unselfish motives for scholarly activity which meets real needs in the world.

Furthermore, when students are allowed to address real problems they may be more likely to move beyond relativism and scepticism in their own development. It is harder to avoid commitment and to remain sceptical or cynical when the issues are ones which real people and even students themselves actually face or will face.

2. Faculty should be urged to undertake programs of personal and professional development which introduce significant dissonance in their own experience. I have mentioned the importance of dissonance in student cognitive development; "no pain, no gain." But of course "what is good for the goose is good for the gander." Faculty often become comfortable. It is easy to avoid situations which force us to rethink our perspectives. It is easier to accumulate than to prune and graft in our intellectual growth. Unless faculty themselves have developed beyond relativism and scepticism they can hardly model critical commitment for students or provide experiences which will promote the student's development to that stage.

There are many ways in which faculty might stretch themselves. Participation in team-taught courses is one I believe has been too easily dismissed. Many institutions have tried such courses and faculty have often been disillusioned. This is not the place to digress to a full treatment of the history of such courses. But they do have several features which provide opportunities for faculty development. First, when faculty are forced to coordinate their conceptual scheme with that of another faculty member there will inevitably be cognitive dissonance. If their partner is from another discipline that dissonance will likely be even greater. And of course if the team crosses divisional lines the differences are greater still. The need to re-conceptualize and re-articulate one's point of view in the categories of another person is without doubt a stretching and learning experience. Most faculty will acknowledge that their learning did not end with their first teaching assignment. An old graduate professor of mine once said his education really began when he started teaching. I believe the reason this is true comes back to an inherent feature of teaching. The teacher must re-express his or her understanding in the language of those who are not yet initiated into the language and conceptual scheme of the discipline. What goes on between team members of a team-taught course is much the same. Both sides learn new things and learn to see old concepts from new perspectives. That forced re-conceptualization promotes development. Second, if such courses are also inter-disciplinary they facilitate treatment of real human problems rather than artificial ones with all the advantages I have described above.

A variation on this suggestion is a strong program of faculty interaction with one another within the community. There is nothing new here except to see the importance of such programs in promoting the kind of faculty essential to fulfilling the genius of Christian higher education. For example, regular colloquia in which faculty read informal papers, book reviews, or notes on teaching ideas to one another can promote the re-conceptualization conducive to growth. Such colloquia can be faculty-wide, within divisions, and even within departments where ironically in some cases colleagues often rarely interact on substantive issues. Regular summer "institutes" in which groups of faculty across disciplinary lines devote substantial periods of time to working to together on real-world issues of importance to Christians and non-Christians alike can provide the locus not only for individual personal dissonance and growth, but for preparation to model that growth and provoke it in students. While it is generally known that faculty who are overly devoted to their research do not necessarily make better teachers, it is also true that when faculty are excited about their material and are themselves continuing to learn they usually pass that on to their students.

Another way faculty can stretch themselves to promote their own development is by participation in significant cross-cultural experiences including instructional programs. While the primary purpose of such programs may be for stimulating cognitive and moral development for the student participants, it can be of significant benefit to faculty as well. The disorientation of living and even lecturing in a foreign environment can stimulate the same kind development in faculty.

3. Deans should be careful to hire and retain faculty who already show evidence of interest in integrative scholarship and will contribute to a community environment in which such scholarship will flourish. Too often faculty recruitment--even in Christian institutions--focuses on exactly the same criteria one would use in hiring at a secular research university. Naturally, there is concern about teaching and theological orthodoxy, but often the question of whether candidates understand and accept the distinctives of Christian higher education is never or inadequately addressed. This may be in part because leadership has never adequately reflected on the genius of Christian education and on the kind of scholarship that would require. But it is also most certainly because it is just as tempting for administrators to adopt the agendae and perspective of secular education as it is for faculty to follow their professional guilds. In any case there must be greater attention given to this matter at the point of initial hiring.

Furthermore, the institution must be sure there are structures in place which reward faculty who pursue integrative scholarship. In fact, apart from a few token rewards for teaching, the standards for promotion and tenure at many Christian institutions look more and more like those of the secular institution. I think we would all be amazed if we were to step back and see clearly how much outside institutions and standards control and shape our Christian institutions. Again I want to emphasize that there are naturally many good reasons why this should be true. It is critical that such institutions escape the long-time whiff of mediocrity. But my point is that our hiring and reward system must be more than reactionism. We should not only try to identify candidates who demonstrate interest in integrative scholarship, we should not only establish colloquia and institutes and cross-cultural opportunities in which this interest can flourish, but we must be sure that attention to such issues is rewarded at least as much as the narrow disciplinary work which addresses only the agendae of faculty professional guilds.

Finally, I strongly believe that diversity within the faculty contributes greatly to integrative scholarship and faculty development. Diversity of race, of gender, of ethnic origin, and of experience all create an environment where faculty are constantly forced to re-conceptualize their thinking in order to communicate among themselves and with students who are studying with their colleagues. In a sense it is to create many of the benefits of cross-cultural experience "at home." And of course these reasons for hiring persons of diverse backgrounds are entirely separate from a host of other very good reasons having to do with broadening access and equipping students for a rapidly changing world.

Conclusion

These suggestions are few and only roughly developed. I believe others could add many. But taken together they might begin to make a difference in Christian institutions of higher education. Leaders in our institutions must recognize the genius of Christian higher education. They must see it is not to be a clone of secular education any more than it was to be a mediocre shadow of that secular model. They must move beyond reacting to those old charges of academic inferiority and recognize the distinctive place Christian education can hold.

They must focus clearly on what kind of graduate we are called to produce. I believe that means understanding what it means to be a person of critical commitment; neither dogmatic nor sceptical but distinct from and beyond both. It means to struggle with the subtleties of that distinction and avoid the temptation to settle for shallow substitutes.

Leaders must also then focus clearly on what kind of faculty will be required to produce those distinctive graduates. I believe that means faculty who are integrative scholars. It means faculty who are neither mediocre dabblers nor clones of their secular counterparts in professional guilds. It means scholars who begin with competence in their discipline but go beyond to build bridges to other disciplines. It means scholars who address issues of particular concern to the Christian community and reflect on all issues from the perspective of their Christian world view. It means scholars who are not content to address artificial questions set by their secular guilds but who address instead real problems of practical concern to people everywhere.

Soon after the luncheon debate I described above, I had lunch with the former advisor to my college Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship chapter 20 years back. He has always opposed Christian higher education and his views have not changed. His own sons did not attend Christian colleges and 2 of them are now professors in secular institutions where he (& they) believe they can really make a difference for Christ. My friend complains that "Christians are supposed to be the salt of the earth but Christian colleges suck all the salt out of the earth." He wonders whether on balance graduates of Christian colleges really engage the world for Christ more effectively than graduates of secular institutions. I believe the jury is still out.

But I also believe that if Christian institutions of higher education were to focus more clearly on this genius they would not only put to an end those discussions among their faculty about where to send their own children but would reclaim their unique role in contributing to the Body of Christ and to the work of the Kingdom of God.

Jim Mannoia
Houghton College 1993
Mss under review Summer 1998