I will be reviewing Tom Oord's forthcoming book when it comes out in about a month: The Uncontrolling Love of God: An Open and Relational View of Providence. He has produced a video teaser.
Showing posts with label Tom Oord. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tom Oord. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 03, 2015
Tuesday, July 14, 2015
The Coming, "Remnant" Christian College
1. I started this post on Friday when I heard that Jim Stump had resigned from Bethel College in Mishawaka because its Board had decided now to require faculty to sign a very specific faith statement involving the special creation of Adam. That is entirely their right, but with so many of these incidents recently, it prompts us to ask what exactly is going on right now in Christian higher education.
In just the last month we have seen Tom Oord leaving NNU and Daniel Kirk leaving Fuller. Now Jim Stumps. Others could be mentioned from recent years. I fear this is just the beginning.
2. I don't think it is just a matter of faculty types not getting the political context of the educational institution. There is some of that, of course. Faculty tend to think of academic freedom as an absolute, when it isn't at any institution. Every institution has things you can and cannot say. The goal is to work at a place where you can say what you want to say and don't mind keeping your mouth shut if there are things you just can't say there (especially when you don't have tenure yet).
Take Brandon Withrow. We should deeply respect him for realizing that he just can't teach at a Christian seminary if he has stopped believing. Good for him. I have the same respect for Jim Stumps, who realized it wasn't worth it to sign a statement that forbade him from exploring an aspect of faith that was central to his work as a scholar.
3. But I think something bigger is going on here. I thought of two or three possible factors that might be driving this increasing trend. And I suspect it is headed in a certain direction, at least in the short term.
First, I believe there was a predictable, conservative backlash after 9-11. No one was saying the stuff you hear on Fox News today in 2000. In the year 2000, it seemed like no one cared about inerrancy as an issue any more. All the college students I knew at the time were completely on board with social justice. I remember when I asked now President David Wright if he would write a chapter on "Communism versus Capitalism" for a philosophy textbook and he wondered if anyone was still talking about that issue any more.
Second, the majority position on homosexuality and gay marriage has dramatically shifted so quickly that many, many Christians are in a state of complete disequilibrium and instability. What is happening to a country where, just a decade ago, we seemed in control of the White House?
Coupled with this sense of societal vertigo is the rise of the nones, those who no longer identify with Christianity. This trend relates especially to the 20 somethings. Ed Stetzer has plausibly argued that "convictional" Christianity is not actually on the decline at all, but that it is nominal Christianity that is quickly converting to the "no religion" category.
4. Here's what I'm wondering. What happens when you feel like you are being routed in battle is retreat, retrenchment, regrouping. You get inside the fort. The coach calls a time out and you huddle on the sidelines.
For a long time now, civil religion has been the name of the game, what Richard Niebuhr called "Christ over culture." This is rapidly, predictably, converting to a "Christ against culture" posture. (The Anabaptists will be glad to welcome us all. They've been trying to tell us no nation can be Christian for 500 years.)
You can already see it. Just this past Sunday my own pastor was preaching about how Moses, despite the fact that he had a very comfortable life in Egypt, eventually had to face the fact that he belonged to a different homeland. This is all very predictable. This is righteous remnant theology. For the near future, convictional Christians will see themselves as something like a remnant in exile.
5. In a time of insecurity, we can expect many "convictional" Christian colleges to clamp down on what their faculty teach. They will go into protectionist mode. Many of those who still want a Christian college will want an island of protection from the world more than ever, defined in whatever way that particular tradition defines it.
To the degree that nominal Christians have been open to a Christian college, we should expect them increasingly to avoid colleges where Christian faith is front and center. I have reason to believe such colleges may even disgust them, repulse them. So the pool of potential students will decline. Some Christian colleges will probably have to close--and not because of the government. They will close because there just won't be enough Christian students to go around.
Meanwhile, many of these campuses will develop a remnant mentality. Boards will exert ever stricter standards on who is hired and what they can teach on these islands. New, stricter yard sticks will force existing faculty to leave.
These actions in turn will disgust a lot of students, even as it may delight some parents. According to Kyle Roberts, the Southern Baptist Church lost 200,000 people last year, the most ever in a single year. And less than half of its churches baptized any millennials at all last year.
6. Is there another option? I suspect there is. There is the "influence" model I experienced at St. John's College at the University of Durham in England. The leadership of the school were all Christians. Christian worship was readily available to those who wished to avail themselves. But there were plenty of atheists around too and none of them felt one bit uncomfortable there, as far as I could tell.
At St. John's, Christianity was host to the students, who took their classes at the broader university. We would say it was co-curricular. It did not wear its faith on its sleeves or push faith on the students. But it invited whosoever willed. It provided a context.
There is something different about Tom Oord and Jim Stump than some others who have left institutions. It is clear to me that their faith actually stands at the center of their outside-the-box thinking. IWU's President once described faith statements more as the fertile soil from which academic inquiry grows rather than a fence to keep faith from going outside. By that standard, Oord and Stumps would be able to continue teaching at a Christian college that feels secure about itself.
I wonder how a Christian college would do in the days ahead if only professors like Oord and Stumps were allowed to teach there. Would there be a market for a Christian college like that, where faith defined the starting point but not so much the ending, faith seeking understanding? A kind of L'Abri 2.0?
7. Part of me says this is just a transitional moment in history. The disequilibrium of the moment will pass. There will be a new equilibrium. After the smoke clears, there will still be convictional Christian colleges. The question is what they will look like.
In just the last month we have seen Tom Oord leaving NNU and Daniel Kirk leaving Fuller. Now Jim Stumps. Others could be mentioned from recent years. I fear this is just the beginning.
2. I don't think it is just a matter of faculty types not getting the political context of the educational institution. There is some of that, of course. Faculty tend to think of academic freedom as an absolute, when it isn't at any institution. Every institution has things you can and cannot say. The goal is to work at a place where you can say what you want to say and don't mind keeping your mouth shut if there are things you just can't say there (especially when you don't have tenure yet).
Take Brandon Withrow. We should deeply respect him for realizing that he just can't teach at a Christian seminary if he has stopped believing. Good for him. I have the same respect for Jim Stumps, who realized it wasn't worth it to sign a statement that forbade him from exploring an aspect of faith that was central to his work as a scholar.
3. But I think something bigger is going on here. I thought of two or three possible factors that might be driving this increasing trend. And I suspect it is headed in a certain direction, at least in the short term.
First, I believe there was a predictable, conservative backlash after 9-11. No one was saying the stuff you hear on Fox News today in 2000. In the year 2000, it seemed like no one cared about inerrancy as an issue any more. All the college students I knew at the time were completely on board with social justice. I remember when I asked now President David Wright if he would write a chapter on "Communism versus Capitalism" for a philosophy textbook and he wondered if anyone was still talking about that issue any more.
Second, the majority position on homosexuality and gay marriage has dramatically shifted so quickly that many, many Christians are in a state of complete disequilibrium and instability. What is happening to a country where, just a decade ago, we seemed in control of the White House?
Coupled with this sense of societal vertigo is the rise of the nones, those who no longer identify with Christianity. This trend relates especially to the 20 somethings. Ed Stetzer has plausibly argued that "convictional" Christianity is not actually on the decline at all, but that it is nominal Christianity that is quickly converting to the "no religion" category.
4. Here's what I'm wondering. What happens when you feel like you are being routed in battle is retreat, retrenchment, regrouping. You get inside the fort. The coach calls a time out and you huddle on the sidelines.
For a long time now, civil religion has been the name of the game, what Richard Niebuhr called "Christ over culture." This is rapidly, predictably, converting to a "Christ against culture" posture. (The Anabaptists will be glad to welcome us all. They've been trying to tell us no nation can be Christian for 500 years.)
You can already see it. Just this past Sunday my own pastor was preaching about how Moses, despite the fact that he had a very comfortable life in Egypt, eventually had to face the fact that he belonged to a different homeland. This is all very predictable. This is righteous remnant theology. For the near future, convictional Christians will see themselves as something like a remnant in exile.
5. In a time of insecurity, we can expect many "convictional" Christian colleges to clamp down on what their faculty teach. They will go into protectionist mode. Many of those who still want a Christian college will want an island of protection from the world more than ever, defined in whatever way that particular tradition defines it.
To the degree that nominal Christians have been open to a Christian college, we should expect them increasingly to avoid colleges where Christian faith is front and center. I have reason to believe such colleges may even disgust them, repulse them. So the pool of potential students will decline. Some Christian colleges will probably have to close--and not because of the government. They will close because there just won't be enough Christian students to go around.
Meanwhile, many of these campuses will develop a remnant mentality. Boards will exert ever stricter standards on who is hired and what they can teach on these islands. New, stricter yard sticks will force existing faculty to leave.
These actions in turn will disgust a lot of students, even as it may delight some parents. According to Kyle Roberts, the Southern Baptist Church lost 200,000 people last year, the most ever in a single year. And less than half of its churches baptized any millennials at all last year.
6. Is there another option? I suspect there is. There is the "influence" model I experienced at St. John's College at the University of Durham in England. The leadership of the school were all Christians. Christian worship was readily available to those who wished to avail themselves. But there were plenty of atheists around too and none of them felt one bit uncomfortable there, as far as I could tell.
At St. John's, Christianity was host to the students, who took their classes at the broader university. We would say it was co-curricular. It did not wear its faith on its sleeves or push faith on the students. But it invited whosoever willed. It provided a context.
There is something different about Tom Oord and Jim Stump than some others who have left institutions. It is clear to me that their faith actually stands at the center of their outside-the-box thinking. IWU's President once described faith statements more as the fertile soil from which academic inquiry grows rather than a fence to keep faith from going outside. By that standard, Oord and Stumps would be able to continue teaching at a Christian college that feels secure about itself.
I wonder how a Christian college would do in the days ahead if only professors like Oord and Stumps were allowed to teach there. Would there be a market for a Christian college like that, where faith defined the starting point but not so much the ending, faith seeking understanding? A kind of L'Abri 2.0?
7. Part of me says this is just a transitional moment in history. The disequilibrium of the moment will pass. There will be a new equilibrium. After the smoke clears, there will still be convictional Christian colleges. The question is what they will look like.
Saturday, June 27, 2015
Ruled out of Oord-er
Yesterday, Northwest Nazarene confirmed its decision to let Thomas Oord go. My initial post on this situation is here. Tom has recorded and posted a civil response here and his video version here.
1. I have greatly mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I suspect Dr. Oord could win a lawsuit against NNU. It is overwhelmingly clear to any fair-minded person that this lay off is for ideological reasons rather than NNU's economic situation. And given that Kevin Timpe is leaving for Calvin, there is a theology/philosophy spot open anyway. In short, this is exactly why tenure was invented and about the only thing it is actually good for.
2. On the other hand, I sympathize with the board and administration, because having professors that are radical for their clientele is not good for a desired trajectory or potentially for business. This may seem Cro-Magnon to say, but universities do have to have students to stay open, and what parents think of a university is a significant factor in whether you have students.
Yes, I like to think of universities as "liberating" the minds of youth. Yes, I see universities as one of the best hopes for the future of Western civilization.
But there is a balancing act here. Woody Allen once wrote, "If it bends, it's funny. If it breaks, it's not." The same might be said of a "niche" educational institution such as Christian colleges are. You can stretch students and their parents will tolerate some stretching if it is within tolerable limits. But there is also a break point, where faculty are just not mission fit and "bad for business."
Most of the time, truth is not this objectively obvious thing. Those who think all universities should just hire the best scholars are several decades behind the curve. If postmodernism is good for anything, it has shown us that there is no such thing as the Spock-like, objective scholar. This is especially the case in the liberal arts and subjects like theology.
3. Who a university hires sets a trajectory not only for the university but for generations of students. I'll use Dr. Martin at IWU as an example. His thinking had significant elements of Reformed epistemology to them, IMO. As a Wesleyan I didn't like it, even though he was a godly man, a great professor, and an incredible mentor.
He had an immense impact on generations of IWU students. I sometimes hear his voice even in Steve Deneff's preaching (truth is revealed rather than discovered). Who a university hires can have an immense impact on generations, especially at small colleges, especially when they are forming the leaders of a denomination.
So you think of the fact that open theism seems very prevalent in the Nazarene Church. Why is that? Is it not because there are a number of influential Nazarene professors who teach it? Again, I don't think open theism is the boogie man. As heresies go, I put it in the category of heresy-light, the kind that most of us have rattling around somewhere in our thinking.
So I feel for the board and administration in that sense. Tom is obviously a great guy and a great professor, but they very likely see him as a bad influence on the denomination. This is why it is essential to hire the right people to teach on the front end.
4. But lastly and mostly, I feel for Tom and the faculty at NNU. Here is one of the Nazarene church's best scholars and brightest minds. One model for a university is as a place where experts on particular topics push the boundaries of knowledge and understanding on that topic. In some cases, a university is a place where the brightest minds of a particular generation become masters of truth.
But there are other models that are also legitimate and more dominant for obvious reasons. There's the model of college as a place to learn a skill to get a job. There's college as a place for students to be formed according to the particular virtues and ideology of a particular group. Christian colleges tend to fall especially in this last "formational" category, IMO.
Most professors unthinkingly assume that their role is the first one--to pursue the bounds of knowledge and enlighten students. By contrast, parents (especially at Christian colleges) assume that the point of the college is the last two--to form students in some particular Christian set of ideas and values and to equip them to get a job.
Of course the ideological pinch is also present at secular institutions, but with different boundaries. There are boundaries you just can't push there either, just different ones. And social media is lynching secular professors these days too.
The leadership of NNU has soundly located it yesterday in the formation/vocation camp with this decision, not the research/push the bounds of truth camp. They've implicitly said, "Send your kids here to be formed along traditional Nazarene lines." They've rejected, "Send your kids here to be cutting edge thinkers." I accept this decision as the nature of the game, even if it saddens me.
5. So its just a bad situation all around. Tom is an excellent thinker and professor. He should be teaching somewhere. I was hoping maybe United in Dayton would hire him, since Jason Vickers is leaving there for Asbury Memphis. (nudge, nudge) I think there are students who would go to a particular graduate school just to study with him (including a LOT of angry young Nazarenes right now).
The world needs thinkers who push the boundaries. They just need to be at the right schools. They need to be at places where it's okay to push their particular boundaries of choice.
1. I have greatly mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I suspect Dr. Oord could win a lawsuit against NNU. It is overwhelmingly clear to any fair-minded person that this lay off is for ideological reasons rather than NNU's economic situation. And given that Kevin Timpe is leaving for Calvin, there is a theology/philosophy spot open anyway. In short, this is exactly why tenure was invented and about the only thing it is actually good for.
2. On the other hand, I sympathize with the board and administration, because having professors that are radical for their clientele is not good for a desired trajectory or potentially for business. This may seem Cro-Magnon to say, but universities do have to have students to stay open, and what parents think of a university is a significant factor in whether you have students.
Yes, I like to think of universities as "liberating" the minds of youth. Yes, I see universities as one of the best hopes for the future of Western civilization.
But there is a balancing act here. Woody Allen once wrote, "If it bends, it's funny. If it breaks, it's not." The same might be said of a "niche" educational institution such as Christian colleges are. You can stretch students and their parents will tolerate some stretching if it is within tolerable limits. But there is also a break point, where faculty are just not mission fit and "bad for business."
Most of the time, truth is not this objectively obvious thing. Those who think all universities should just hire the best scholars are several decades behind the curve. If postmodernism is good for anything, it has shown us that there is no such thing as the Spock-like, objective scholar. This is especially the case in the liberal arts and subjects like theology.
3. Who a university hires sets a trajectory not only for the university but for generations of students. I'll use Dr. Martin at IWU as an example. His thinking had significant elements of Reformed epistemology to them, IMO. As a Wesleyan I didn't like it, even though he was a godly man, a great professor, and an incredible mentor.
He had an immense impact on generations of IWU students. I sometimes hear his voice even in Steve Deneff's preaching (truth is revealed rather than discovered). Who a university hires can have an immense impact on generations, especially at small colleges, especially when they are forming the leaders of a denomination.
So you think of the fact that open theism seems very prevalent in the Nazarene Church. Why is that? Is it not because there are a number of influential Nazarene professors who teach it? Again, I don't think open theism is the boogie man. As heresies go, I put it in the category of heresy-light, the kind that most of us have rattling around somewhere in our thinking.
So I feel for the board and administration in that sense. Tom is obviously a great guy and a great professor, but they very likely see him as a bad influence on the denomination. This is why it is essential to hire the right people to teach on the front end.
4. But lastly and mostly, I feel for Tom and the faculty at NNU. Here is one of the Nazarene church's best scholars and brightest minds. One model for a university is as a place where experts on particular topics push the boundaries of knowledge and understanding on that topic. In some cases, a university is a place where the brightest minds of a particular generation become masters of truth.
But there are other models that are also legitimate and more dominant for obvious reasons. There's the model of college as a place to learn a skill to get a job. There's college as a place for students to be formed according to the particular virtues and ideology of a particular group. Christian colleges tend to fall especially in this last "formational" category, IMO.
Most professors unthinkingly assume that their role is the first one--to pursue the bounds of knowledge and enlighten students. By contrast, parents (especially at Christian colleges) assume that the point of the college is the last two--to form students in some particular Christian set of ideas and values and to equip them to get a job.
Of course the ideological pinch is also present at secular institutions, but with different boundaries. There are boundaries you just can't push there either, just different ones. And social media is lynching secular professors these days too.
The leadership of NNU has soundly located it yesterday in the formation/vocation camp with this decision, not the research/push the bounds of truth camp. They've implicitly said, "Send your kids here to be formed along traditional Nazarene lines." They've rejected, "Send your kids here to be cutting edge thinkers." I accept this decision as the nature of the game, even if it saddens me.
5. So its just a bad situation all around. Tom is an excellent thinker and professor. He should be teaching somewhere. I was hoping maybe United in Dayton would hire him, since Jason Vickers is leaving there for Asbury Memphis. (nudge, nudge) I think there are students who would go to a particular graduate school just to study with him (including a LOT of angry young Nazarenes right now).
The world needs thinkers who push the boundaries. They just need to be at the right schools. They need to be at places where it's okay to push their particular boundaries of choice.
Thursday, April 09, 2015
The curious case of Dr. Oord
Much of the Nazarene academic community and others in the Wesleyan tradition are currently alarmed at the potential elimination of Dr. Thomas Oord's position in theology at Northwest Nazarene. Oord is a tenured professor and has not successfully been accused of violating Nazarene doctrine, so the elimination of his position for financial reasons would seem to be the only way to get rid of him legally, assuming that proper procedure is followed even then.
I don't know Dr. Oord or the details of his theology. Scott Jaschik at Inside Higher Ed has suggested that the reason has to do with his affirmation of evolutionary creation. I don't know if that is the case, although Jaschik seems quite off in his sense of how that might violate NNU's faith statement. Oord is also an open theist, which is someone who believes God suspended his knowledge of the future so that we could have free will. As far as I know, Oord would not claim to believe in process theology.
I understand the pressure Christian colleges can experience from their constituencies, and the fact sheet I've seen on the crisis would indicate that NNU has received its share of pressure in relation to Dr. Oord. Colleges need students. If a certain professor is perceived to undermine enrollment, that is serious indeed. On the other hand, if tenure is good for anything, it is to protect competent professors from these forces of popular nature.
I'm sure Dr. Oord will land on his feet. My impression is that he might be able to win this one in court. In any case, I don't think he will have any trouble finding a job somewhere else.
There are reminders here, though, of things that I try to keep in mind:
Sometimes it wins the day. But most of the time thus far, it hasn't.
I don't know Dr. Oord or the details of his theology. Scott Jaschik at Inside Higher Ed has suggested that the reason has to do with his affirmation of evolutionary creation. I don't know if that is the case, although Jaschik seems quite off in his sense of how that might violate NNU's faith statement. Oord is also an open theist, which is someone who believes God suspended his knowledge of the future so that we could have free will. As far as I know, Oord would not claim to believe in process theology.
I understand the pressure Christian colleges can experience from their constituencies, and the fact sheet I've seen on the crisis would indicate that NNU has received its share of pressure in relation to Dr. Oord. Colleges need students. If a certain professor is perceived to undermine enrollment, that is serious indeed. On the other hand, if tenure is good for anything, it is to protect competent professors from these forces of popular nature.
I'm sure Dr. Oord will land on his feet. My impression is that he might be able to win this one in court. In any case, I don't think he will have any trouble finding a job somewhere else.
There are reminders here, though, of things that I try to keep in mind:
- Colleges are businesses. They can only continue to exist if they have students. Students come because they want what you are selling, and it's a big problem if professors aren't selling something they want to buy.
- Academic freedom is somewhat of a myth. There are things you just can't teach or say anywhere, and I'm including Harvard and the University of Chicago in that statement. Professors don't have carte blanche to say just anything they want and think there won't be repercussions. If a university wants to get rid of you, it will usually find a way.
- A good college will go a long way to protect competent faculty from popular uprisings and the power of wealthy donors. But faculty and administration should work together to do so, which means that both sides are willing to give a little.
Sometimes it wins the day. But most of the time thus far, it hasn't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
