Her.meneutics: The 'D Word' at U.S. Christian Colleges

back to Christianity Today

RSS Feed | Help

e-mail to a friend

twitter updates

Follow Her.meneutics on Twitter

What Is Her.meneutics?

The Christianity Today women's blog provides news and analysis from the perspective of evangelical women. We cover news stories and books related to international justice and evangelism, pregnancy and sexual ethics, marriage, parenting, and celibacy, pop culture, health and body image, raising girls, and women in the church and parachurch.

Her.meneutics is edited by associate editor Katelyn Beaty and online editor Sarah Pulliam Bailey.

interests

books and media

church life

justice and politics

relationships and family

sexuality and health

spirituality

theology

women of note

writers

More ...

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

« Skinny Jeans, Nose Jobs, and Jesus | Main | Stalked by a Priest »

July 6, 2010

The 'D Word' at U.S. Christian Colleges

At my Christian university, we are working toward reconciliation across ethnic and racial lines. We have a ways to go.

Marlena Graves, guest blogger

When Carmille Akande, a dean at Cedarville University, and I stepped into the Duke Gardens for the opening reception of Duke Divinity School’s Summer Institute — a project of Duke’s Center for Reconciliation — we sensed we were on holy ground. Our gratitude, awe, and love for Christ and his body only intensified throughout the week in June. Being with such a diverse group was a foretaste of the coming kingdom. And as we worshiped, fellowshipped, and lamented alongside brothers and sisters from all over the world, we were better equipped for our own ministry of reconciliation at Cedarville, a Baptist-affiliated college in Ohio.

We learned of Census projections that ethnic minorities will compose the majority in the U.S. by 2040. That, coupled with the fact that the center of Christianity has tilted toward the Global South, predominantly white Christian colleges and universities like Cedarville have to make changes necessary for institutional survival. But more important, the changes are necessary to faithfully represent Christ and his kingdom in our world.

Cedarville has already taken steps toward this faithful representation. In 2006, university trustees approved a statement on diversity, which includes the following:

Cedarville University actively seeks to attract and serve a diverse group of Christian employees and students who exercise their spiritual calling to be agents of reconciliation; pursuing unity, peace, and community in an atmosphere that recognizes our union in Christ and celebrates the contributions of all who seek to follow Christ.

In fall 2008, we hired Carmille as the Dean of Multi-Cultural and Special Programs. We hold diversity training and have a diversity committee. We are trying to diversify our faculty and staff. Such steps mirror those taking place at most other Christian colleges in the U.S. Thankfully many people on campus “get it.” But, like most U.S. Christian colleges and universities, we have a lot to learn — and some institutional sin to overcome.

When we celebrate Martin Luther King Jr. Day each January, hold diversity training, or even mention diversity, I inevitably hear, “Why is diversity being shoved down our throats? I’m tired of it. I love everybody. I am color-blind.” After the 2008 presidential election, minority students who supported President Obama told stories of how their salvation was called into question by some on campus. Many felt they couldn’t openly celebrate the election of America’s first black president without meeting condemnation.

As I talk to colleagues at other Christian colleges, I hear similar stories. And as I’ve listened to stories from minority Cedarville students, and one from faculty and staff at other Christian schools, I’ve learned that minority students often report they’ve been treated worse at Christian institutions than at secular ones. I wonder if, as Christian higher educational institutions, we are seeking cosmetic diversity instead of true reconciliation. A majority of the time, we seem clueless about the inequality, humiliation, and indignity that minority students suffer on Christian campuses.

What do we do? In an institute seminar led by Peter T. Cha, associate professor of pastoral theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and David Black, president of Eastern University, we learned that one step forward is pinpointing the underlying assumptions of our organizational culture. For example, Cedarville has a doctrinal statement and a community covenant, artifacts that outline what we believe and how we strive to behave. These artifacts shape our practice, but they do not tell the whole story. The unwritten and unspoken rules — the underlying assumptions on our Christian campus (and in any church or Christian organization) — are the crux of our identity. They become our implicit theology.

A few examples of the underlying assumptions I’ve observed: The Republican Party is the Christian Party. Fox News is the preferred news outlet. Raising one’s hands and praying expressively in chapel is too charismatic. Of course, none of these are stated in our doctrinal statement or community covenant. And of course it’s fine for anyone to vote Republican, watch only Fox News, and have lowered hands and less noisy prayer. But if these underlying assumptions are used to say who’s in and who’s out, then we alienate many minority students, faculty, staff, and visitors who don’t share the same assumptions. Many black Christians vote Democrat; many minorities and whites in the U.S. and worldwide worship expressively. What do we communicate to them when they spend time on our campus?

If evangelical colleges are to become institutions that look and behave increasingly like Christ’s body, a helpful first step is to simply name those artifacts, shared values, and assumptions that may be hindering biblical reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:11-21). It’s not an easy task and not something a few people can do alone. As for myself, as a resident director, I must model a gracious spirit. I want to demonstrate that one can disagree staunchly with a brother or sister while respectfully listening and not slandering him or her. And as a biracial Puerto-Rican, I am keenly aware of the need to integrate minorities into my staff and dorm, to give them a voice, and to encourage their contributions on campus. I seek to model reconciliation through conversation, writing, seminars, and my lifestyle.

What are the underlying assumptions at your institutions and networks? Do these tend to help or hinder reconciliation across ethnic lines?

Marlena Graves (M.Div., Northeastern Seminary) is a resident director at Cedarville. She blogs at His Path Through the Wilderness, and has written for Her.meneutics about safeguarding against adultery, friendship between men and women, the sin of self-promotion, and same-sex attraction.

Comments

Christians better get used to fellowship with other Christian brothers and sisters who are of a different race, culture, and/or ethnic group quickly. After all, we will all one day be mixed together in heaven for eternity. And eternity is a long time to feel weird, uncomfortable or hostile.

(Ironically, the captcha words I have to enter to post this comment says "million klansman. LOL)

How is diversity in the PC sense related to the examples given of worship styles and political views?!!

True diversity is not "politically correct," because it inherently seeks to disarm the political mechanism that says we all must just "get along." In PC "diversity" (and I use that term very loosely), we tolerate differences and allow separate observances without participating in them. In true diversity, we welcome, celebrate, and even explore differences--in worship style, in social imperatives, in racial/ethnic expression--and seek to learn from and join in those differences. The catch with Christianity, of course, is always this: Does it line up with the Bible? Having cut my teeth on charismatic worship (hands raised and public prayers and much "AMEN!"), I cannot imagine NOT worshiping that way, but I know some people get along just fine without those things. The important thing is that my worship and the worship of my rather quiet "neighbors" in other Christian churches both agree with the call to worship in spirit and in truth.

My late beloved wife taught (or attempted to teach) about discrimination, oppression and diversity to future social workers. What I saw in their papers and exams was that there is still much institutional discrimination on all sorts of levels, and the churches of Christ are not immune to it. Reconciliation, reeducation, and celebration are just the beginning of eliminating the diversity gap. THAT is why it's being "shoved down out throats." Thanks for this article.

Thank you for starting the conversation. I hope we continue it here at Cedarville. May I use this piece in my faculty development sessions?

Diversity is a very hard to impress upon many people. They do not like to get very far out of their comfort zone, and many would not attempt it outside of a group setting or where they could contribute only money to. It's those people who feel that it's being "shoved down their throats". I believe that if the different denominations could create or join an umbrella group that could help bring the message of Christ to the groups you're talking about is a big plus to this problem. And I think if they could get together to form or support soup kitchens, used clothing outlets or other social outreach programs would not only their social duty, but the duty that Jesus commands us to do!

I think diversity is important and we should not call someone's salvation into question because they decided to vote for President Obama. However, I cannot stand it when I state my objection to the President I am considered a racist or a person who is stuck in the past.

I am white, I like Fox News, I am a Republican. Yet, these should not be things that are held against a person. I do not hold it against someone when they vote for a black democrat as long as they are voting for him because they truly believe he is good for the country because of his views and policies and not because the color of his skin. We want to hole equality up yet only when it applies to whites. But when a minority votes for someone because of the color of their skin that is diversity?

I pray that God continues to illuminate my mind and soul and if there is wrong in me I want to see and change. I pray that we all can grow in the grace and peace and love of Christ Jesus.

In answer to James Humphrey, I am a white Christian and I voted for President Obama in large part because of the color of his skin (Black).
My major reason for doing this was to address the terrible injustice that has never yet been openly acknowledged by most in the Evangelical/Pentecostal church and that is our terrible lack of moral guilt in condoning slavery for so many years.
I do not feel shame about this because I also found President Obama to have an agenda much like Jesus in the Beatitudes, something our Christian President (Bush) seemed to have lost sight of.
Most Christians were scandalized over Obama's abortion stance.
John Perkins, a Godly Black leader helped me understand this when he said that "he is Pro-life in the womb and Pro-life in the slums".
Of course, that's where we one issue voters were missing the boat.

Marlena, does your school really celebrate MLK Day in February? Shouldn't that be in January?

Apart from that, great article. Yes, it is really sad how race and Christianity and politics have gotten so tied up that people think a Christian must vote Republican. I go to a multicultural church but the leadership is all white. I hear grumblings from some of the blacks who attend that their concerns are not addressed but they don;t feel as if they can talk about them out loud.

Well done! Hopefully we´ll see more of this in deeds and not only words. I live as a german in Jordan. Just today I had to do with believers from the Philippines, America, different states in Europe, Sri Lankis, surely Jordanians, all with very different spiritual and "churchal" backgrounds, sorry I forgot Koreans,Iraqis, Israelis and may be others. With all diversity it´s only important that the very clear message of God, I mean the whole bible, should not be downwatered or compromised, no need for that!
No reason not to stand firm and hold back with the livesaving news God gave us to share. There are other powers out there to be very happy about any shown weakness
by us.

I appreciate the comments of all those that shared their views. But in my opinion, much of this is more about the problem of trying to live out genuine Christian faith in a liberal democratic society and where Christians are more committed to liberal democracy and its promises of the New Jerusalem on earth for humanity. We need to examine ourselves carefully whether it is possible to start by discovering key principles of Christian social ethics and use them to build our organizations, instead of designing our organizations based on simple utilitarian principles and then say, how can Christian social ethics or reconciliation take place in it?

If we believe in one God, one Holy Spirit and one Faith, one Bible, how can people who all agree sincerely on all these receive guidance from the Holy Spirit on crucial things related to Christians ethics that are diametrically opposed to each other and not even complementary to each other? The only way one can explain this is either to say we are not being sincere about certain things or that the Holy Spirit is so divided in His mission that he gives fundamentally contradictory message to his followers.

It seems to me that there is prima facie evidence to suggest that if all Christians are correct (i.e., Bible believing, and receiving guidance from the Holy spirit and interpreting the Bible correctly in humility and submission), then the real explanation for the problems Christians have on the challenging issue of reconciliation is not those things I just mentioned about the Christian faith, but rather, the problems are in their worldview, culture, society, social institutions etc.

Unfortunately, their worldview, culture, society and social institutions were not founded on Christians social ethics as such. The Puritans run away from oppression and had more than 1500 years of Christian wisdom behind them but that did not prevent them from developing theologies that either created or justify the dehumanization of other human beings. The "Anglo-Saxon" became the epitome of human dignity and we still informally struggle with this assumption in a subtle way in my view.

While Christianity contributed to fighting against oppression and different types of social exclusion, we still have to explain why it allowed these problems to emerge and justify them in the first place even when having the Bible and hearing from the Holy Spirit. Christian social ethics is looking for a place to "squat" in the social space created by "liberal democratic society." Not that everything about liberal democracy is bad but we cannot just take it for regarding without interrogating its philosophical and ethical underpinnings. It is now that Christian social ethics is trying to find a way to be seriously relevant. But the empire is fighting back. That empire is in all of us, which is the problem of "libido dominandi" according to St. Augustine.

My conclusion, is that we should all re-examine ourselves, our history, and social location in sincere humility. I truly believe that the Holy Spirit speaks to people. But following Christ is counter-cultural to the kind of market society that we have created and just use the Bible to find verses to legitimize it, assuming whatever exists and is "working" well for us is natural and ordained by God. Note that my statement is not simply a critique of "market society" but in my view, whatever system you have, call it any name; but the fundamental issue is that the system is subject to Christian social ethics.

Following Christ, and indeed, reconciliation is costly, but as Dietrich Bonhoeffer argues, there is a distinction between CHEAP GRACE and COSTLY GRACE. If we follow Christ in humility and accept His truth, it will cost us much and pulverize our sense of cultural complacency but that is alright. The same Holy Spirit cannot give messages that are diametrically opposed to each other to different groups of Christians. If the messages are different, they must be complementing each other (e.g., the message Cornelius and Peter received).

The reason why some are saying I can be this and someone can be that and it is all alright, has to be carefully interrogated so as to draw boundary between Christian social ethics rooted in the guidance of the Holy Spirit / the word of God, and the freedoms of a Liberal Democratic society, which can tolerate many things that are legal and probably comfortable to the flesh but not necessarily edifying in terms of Christian Social Ethics.

Liberty and Freedom in Christ is different from liberty and freedom in a bourgeois society or any kind of society rooted in the enlightenment project e.g. socialism. Often people fuse the two together or conflate them but they are different even if they overlap in some few areas.

Based on Christian social ethics, I have problem with the whole U.S. media, including many Christian radio stations or tv channels. They are all forced to subordinate themselves to the consumer logic of the market, otherise they will not survive, but trying to do so leads to subtle compromise of their message. I am willing to engage in serious conversation with anyone who based on Christian social ethics finds the U.S. media un-problematic.

Furthermore, those making too much noice on Republicans or Democratics need to study carefully the institutions of American goverment, and understand what they are in their essence (rather than apperance) such that whether it is Republican or Democrat, the debate is like between two people who have agreed to have ice cream but are debating which flavor of ice cream is the best.

Based on Christian social ethics, you find both parties wanting. Simply because you cast your vote to a political party does not mean you are under obligation to believe whatever they do or say hook, line, and sinker.

As "patriotic" citizens we may say our political system is the best but based on Christian social ethics, I am sorry, we have a long way to go and our sense of being number one may be more a sign of human hubris than biblical humility and Christian social ethics.

Indeed when we start with Christian social ethics, depending on how we express our patriotism, it can become a kind of idolotry. I know this is difficult for some to swallow, but God is not a respecter of nations in the sense that simply because one lives in a geographical area, he or she is special before God, but another is less human or special because he or she lives in another geographical area or nation.

To clarify what I am saying, I will sugges to the interested reader to kindly get a hold of the six hour documentary series titled "With God on Our Side" and pariticularly watch episode 4: "Prophets and Advisors, 1979-1984." You will see the confessions of committed Evangelical Christian leaders about politics in American society because they participated in it. The problem of evangelicals is not necessarily not knowing the truth.

As Aristole said in critique of Socrates, doing the right thing is not just a function of having the knowledge of what is right even though that is important. We need to invest so much in habituating ourselves to do the right thing in spite of how painful and costly it will be. Often we avoid reconciliation or following Christ because of the cost. In Christianity, we call that DISCIPLESHIP. There is less emphasis on it today. There is too much emphasis on propositional truth and knowledge. Thank you.

God made everyone and everyone to God is beautiful and equal

Mary, did you actually read your comment before you posted it?

You voted for Obama BECAUSE OF THE COLOR OF HIS SKIN? How is that not racism, even if positive rather than negative? Was it not MLK who said that he couldn't wait for the day when people would be judged by their character, rather than their skin color?

Forgive me if I sound harsh, but good grief. You basically killed most of the rest of your argument when you said that. You might try re-evaluating your own "color-blindness" before judging the rest of Evangelical Christianity.

Samuel (or rather Dr.Zalanga)

You are so right on! I very much enjoyed your comments. I minister to black and Hispanic kids and their "families" in the inner-city and am constantly challenged by my "old
nature" versus what the Holy Spirit teaches me is righteous !
I plan to try and find the documentary you reference.
Thank you.

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29

Hermenuetics

twitter updates

What Is Her.meneutics?

interests

writers

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

The 'D Word' at U.S. Christian Colleges

Comments

recent posts

Archives

Hermenuetics

twitter updates

What Is Her.meneutics?

interests

writers

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

The 'D Word' at U.S. Christian Colleges

Comments

recent posts

tags

Archives