Philosophy of Christian Higher Education

I came to Pacific Lutheran University (PLU) by God's guidance.  A very fine Christian accounting professor, Dwight Zulauf, recruited me and I was delighted with the prospect of working at a place where he was a respected and senior person in the School of Business Administration, second only to the dean (at most) in influence. I dedicated my book on the history of higher education in accounting to Dwight.

The idea of teaching at a Christian university with colleagues such as Dwight was pure delight.  When I visited PLU, I saw signs that PLU was (or had once been, as I later learned) Christian.  The center of the campus is the old chapel, with its tall spire topped by a cross, and with the rose window which is PLU's symbol.  It's the building in which I have my office.

If you want a guided tour of the rose window, click here.

When I came, I was told that having a master's in accounting and being a CPA was a terminal degree.  For the sake of business school accreditation by the AACSB, it turned out that I needed to get a PhD.  I had a family to support, so I could not get a degree in business from the University of Washington (UW) because they demanded that a person attend full-time.  I did what I could.  I earned a PhD in Education with a minor area in accounting (I already had a master's degree in accounting).  The accounting courses were not very intellectually rigorous, because the professors there have an obsession with statistics.  My degree was in Educational Theory (involving primarily the philosophy and history of education), though that degree was eliminated either slightly before or after I received my degree.  I might have a degree in Higher Education Administration or something; I don't really care.  In fact, it is in educational theory.

Early in the 1980s, soon after I came to PLU, I was appointed by the dean to an ad hoc committee to study the motto of PLU: "Quality Education in a Christian Context."  The committee was formed by President Rieke, apparently to tone down the Christian part of the mission statement.  To give us context, we on the committee were given a presentation on the history of PLU by Phil Nordquist, a BMOC (a beautiful renovated hall in one of the buildings has been named after him) history professor who leads the parade and carries the scepter at campus convocations, and who was either a supporter or the instigator of Rieke's actions. 

Nordquist

The mission statement then was a beautiful document expressing well the idea of a Christian education. What apparently bothered people were such statements as that PLU "is a community of professing Christian scholars" and "the faculty of the University encourages wholesome development of Christian faith and life."  After President Mortvedt stopped requiring faculty hires to sign a profession of Christian faith (in the early 1970s, I believe), non-Christian faculty were hired in abundance and were only asked in a vague way to support the mission of the University.  The fact that they lied when they said they supported the mission became obvious when they pressed to change the mission statement.  They clearly did not support the mission statements that "all truth is God's truth" and that "The University community confesses the faith that the ultimate meaning and purposes of human life are to be discovered in the person and work of Jesus Christ."  Certainly also they could not affirm that "The University affirms its fundamental obligation to confront liberally educated men and women with the challenges of Christian faith and to instill in them a true sense of vocation."  Because these statements of the mission statement were printed in the catalog each year, the guilty consciences of these unfaithful faculty could not help but bother them.

The justification for changing the mission statement was that PLU quite obviously was no longer "a community of professing Christian scholars" (and, frankly, did not want to be).  There are two alternatives, if this is the problem.  One alternative is to reshape the University according to its professed mission statement--in other words, to repent and return to where we should be.  The other alternative is to change the mission statement.  Rieke wished to accommodate those who had said that they supported the mission when they were hired, but really did not.  Those with me on the ad hoc committee, however, were lukewarm to the change, and I was positively opposed to the change.  The mission statement was not changed at that time.  But it was no longer printed in the catalog.  Some bland and innocuous statement of objectives (written by some nameless administrator) was printed instead--without any approval by the faculty as was required by the university constitution.

I was still naive at that time, thinking that PLU wanted to be a Christian school.  To help them think about how to become a better Christian school, I published an article in the PLU Scene in 1985 about how to teach accounting from a Christian perspective.  It was an outgrowth of work I had done in the ad hoc committee, and was a kind of summary of an article I had published in the first issue of Faculty Dialog.

When PLU was celebrating its centennial, it decided to print some essays on the role of a university in shaping society.  I submitted a paper which made a strong case for PLU to act as a Christian university for the good of society.  Again, I was still naive, and did not yet realize that PLU had no wish to be a Christian university.  It was not published, but if you would like to read it, click here.

Apparently, it was not enough for some people that the real mission statement had largely disappeared off the face of the earth.  No matter how deeply buried the Christian mission was, it was not deep enough for those with guilty consciences.  Rieke continued to push for a new mission statement.  In a memo from him in 1992, he expressed the intent that the new mission statement would appear in the catalog (as the old mission statement had not done for some time).  After the first draft of the new mission statement had appeared, people were invited to speak on the issue at forums in November 1991.  I asked to speak, and, before the president and provost and other professors and students, I decried the new statement for not even including the name of Jesus Christ, and I said that, if the University was not really Christian, the leaders of PLU should tell everyone that it was not, or else realize that they were guilty of hypocrisy.  My jeremiad had no effect, except that the second draft did include the name of Jesus Christ--in passing in the last sentence and without any suggestion that anyone (other than some "Church" somewhere) actually believed in Him.

In response to this second draft, I prepared a statement which I sent to all the faculty and staff of PLU.  Again I stated the importance of Christ to this university, and again I said that, if PLU wanted to be rid of Christ, then it must tell everyone or else be rightly accused of hypocrisy.  I was invited by the editor of the student newspaper, the Mast, to summarize my statement.  I did so, but cannot remember if it was published or not (I don't think it was).

My efforts, as usual, had no effect on the faculty of this place.  When the new mission statement was brought to a vote before the faculty on February 12, 1993, they voted overwhelmingly to accept it.  In fact, when the vote was called against the new mission statement, I hesitated for a moment to see who would vote against it and was stunned that I heard no voices against it.  By the time I recovered, the moment had passed, and even I had not voted against it.  Phil Nordquist, the prime mover at that time in favor of the new mission statement, was ecstatic and wanted it noted in the minutes that the vote was unanimous.  I was devastated and ashamed.

I wrote an editorial for the Mast (published February 19) in which I declared to the entire world that PLU had decided to not be a Christian university.  I wanted parents of prospective students and the prospective students as well to not be deceived into thinking that they were in the hands of a Christian faculty and being encouraged in the Christian faith.  Nordquist wrote a letter to the editor in response to my editorial, and I wrote a letter in response to him.  I learned later than he was quite angry about my efforts.

My editorial stirred up a hornet's nest.  Although most of the faculty care little about Christ, many students and alumni care quite deeply.  They brought their concerns to the Board of Regents and the regents did not approve the new mission statement, nor allow it to be published in the catalog.  Presently, something is printed in the catalog under the title "mission of the university" but it is not the real mission statement nor was it approved by the faculty or regents, so far as I know.  Apparently it was written by some administrator, and no one objects to it because it is so completely empty of belief in Christ.

The Christian heart of PLU is in deep winter.  Pray for spring.

This great struggle over the mission of the university occurred in the early 1990s, and the Lord gave me an opportunity to try to glorify Him at PLU again in 2000.  A devout student came to me at the beginning of the year to work with him in his effort to encourage the "campus ministry" office of PLU to actually glorify Christ.   He was concerned with the direction that campus ministry was going, because it was wanting to include all "religious" groups in the PLU "ministry" program, apparently as though the distinction between Christian and non-Christian were unimportant.  This greatly distressed him because he knew, rightly, that the distinction between Christ and others is all-important.  If salvation is through Christ, then any downplaying of Him results in many not being saved.  Out of a heart for the unsaved, he desired that PLU (a supposedly Christian school) give a clear message on the crucial importance of Christ.

Although I am not eager for battles, I agreed to stand with him, because I believe that such devotion as his should be supported no matter what the cost.  A task force was being formed at his instigation, and he was able to invite one student and one faculty to be members of that group.  At the second meeting of the task force, I suggested that we should express our ideas through e-mails, so that we could come to the meetings having thought about opposing positions and be ready to accomplish something in the short time we had available at the meetings.  If you are interested in the early e-mails of the group (with some on meeting places omitted), involving mostly procedural matters, click here (I have removed e-mail addresses and phone numbers from the messages).

The discussion actually became interesting when Dave Urban (the student who had invited me into the group) expressed what his real concern was.  Then we got into the meat of the issue: how important is Jesus Christ?  There were arguments over what Christianity is, what Lutheranism is, what PLU is, whether faith in Christ is necessary for salvation, etc.  These e-mails reveal some fascinating insights into the thinking of a campus pastor (Sepper), a religion professor (Killen), a philosophy professor (Cooper), an administrator (Majovski), some "religious" students, and some godly students--not to mention my responses to all of it.   If that interests you, click here.   (I should warn you that all the e-mails take up over seventy pages in Microsoft Word.)

In the final recommendation to the Campus Ministry Council, the task force was ambivalent.  There were three who wanted Campus Ministry to be Christian (Dave, Evan, and myself), and there were four who did not (Killen, Cooper, Daehlin, and Mattson), and there was one who surprisingly (based on earlier comments) was not sure (Majovski).   The campus pastors (Sepper and Conner) and the chair (Messler) were not voting members, but Messler argued against it being Christian and Sepper was not sure.  I do not know what happened to our recommendation after it went to CMC (and do not even have a copy of the recommendation as it was finally written).  Dave, Cindy, and Lindsay graduated in May and I do not know what they did after that.  Dave certainly went on to glorify his Lord in some way, Cindy was intending to go to seminary (to become a Lutheran pastor?), and Lindsay graduated summa cum laude (!) in Women's Studies, if I recall correctly.  (My oldest son, Gabriel, graduated then also.  After the graduation ceremony, Prof. Stu Govig (another of the rare Christian faculty) pointed out to me that none of the speakers--including the campus pastors in their prayers--ever named the Name of Jesus Christ.  It was a lifeless ceremony.)

If you have read the various items I have made available to you, you know my philosophy of Christian higher education.  If you have avoided it, here is a brief summary:

I believe that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life and that no one comes to the Father except through Him, as Jesus Himself claims (John 14:6).  I also believe that higher education should teach the truth, and prepare people for an honorable way of life.  With those two beliefs, it is obvious that I must also believe that higher education, to be true to its purpose, must begin and end with Jesus.

The import of my beliefs is not self-evident, however.  The statements I have made immediately raise legitimate questions that I could be asked.  Who do you think Jesus is?  What is truth?  Is your belief that higher education should teach the truth proper?  If no one comes to the Father except through Jesus, are you opposed to diversity?  Each of these questions would require an essay to respond to it, but I can make some very brief responses.

Who is Jesus?  Jesus is the one true Son of God, and God is Love.  Therefore, the ultimate truth and the ultimate goal of life is Love.  If business economics teachers say that the ultimate goal of business is profit maximization, they are wrong, because the ultimate goal of all life, including business, is Love.  If the humanities say that the ultimate good in life is creativity, they are wrong for the same reason.  If the sciences say that the ultimate goal of life is survival, they too are wrong and again for the same reason.  For the arts and the sciences and the professions to be right, they must be right with God.  Any "truth" which is not centered on the Truth is a lie, and destructively misleading.

Higher education must make certain that each area of knowledge begins with the truth.  There is no correct knowledge outside of the truth.  If higher education pretends to provide correct knowledge, then it must claim to know the truth.  If, on the other hand, it claims to be searching for the truth and never able to determine the truth, then it is either claiming that there is no truth (which means the search for it is pointless) or it is claiming to be eternally ignorant (which means it has nothing to give to one seeking truth and knowledge).  While no one can claim to have all truth without error, higher education must claim that it has some basic truths and is seeking to expand on that and to correct misunderstandings--and is willing to accept differences of opinion on non-basic aspects.  What is the basic truth?  As I have said: Jesus is the one true Son of God, and God is Love and is called "Father."

Those who hate Christ in academia speak deceitfully of "tolerance."  They say that we should let people believe whatever they like without bothering them.  Should we let them believe a harmful lie?  Of course not!  Else what is education for?  We should warn them against harmful lies and educate them so they can avoid them.  So the only reason that anyone would say that we should not care whether anyone believes in Christ is because that person does not believe that Christ is the truth, and does not believe that rejecting Him is a harmful lie.  In other words, anyone who advocates such "tolerance" is not a Christian, for a Christian believes that Christ is Lord of all and Savior of the world.  It is true that a Christian tolerates those who do not believe, because he knows that belief cannot be forced.  Yet a Christian hopes and prays and works toward helping a person love the Lord.  A Christian does not simply watch a person walk into destruction, any more than he would watch a person step carelessly in front of a speeding bus without trying to save him.  The false "tolerance" of academicians is simply a sly unbelief.  This is proven by the fact that they are not tolerant when they speak of Christians; indeed they oppose Christians and so show themselves for the liars they are.

Christians do not pretend that Christ (and His coming here to suffer for us) does not matter.  Christian education does not pretend that Christ does not matter.  Christians are followers of Christ.  Christian education follows the teachings of Christ in all things.

Jesus is Lord of all things, including higher education.