“WHY DON’T YOU TEACH AT A CHRISTIAN COLLEGE”
DAVID R. REAGAN

Prof. Reagan asked me to explain to our readers that this article was first submitted to Editor Reuel Lemmons of the Firm Foundation for publication inasmuch as that journal was running articles about teaching in the Christian colleges. The Firm Foundation rejected the article. Prof. Reagan writes from Manila: “Ask the readers if they can figure out why.” So in behalf of the free flow of ideas we pass the article along for your evaluation. You can write to the professor himself about your reaction.—Editor

As the old saying goes, “I wish I had a penny for every time I’ve been asked that question!” I wish too that I had some photos of the puzzled facial expressions that I’ve received in response to my answer.

The question stems from a basic belief prevailing within our brotherhood that any teacher with a Master’s Degree or above “owes it to the Lord” to sacrifice all academic opportunities in order to teach at a “Christian College.” The quizzical reactions to my answer are due also to a fundamental belief of our brotherhood—the sincere conviction that we of the Church of Christ have an absolute monopoly on the truth. For you see, my answer is that “I am an educator and not a propagandist.”

The thrust of my answer centers around the difference between education and indoctrination. As I see it, education—especially higher education—should be a thought provoking process dedicated to the search for truth. Note that I said the search for truth. In other words, education is not a process whereby one receives a corpus of doctrine which has been given the imprimatur of some omnipotent person. Higher education does not consist of the memorization and regurgitation of dogma. This is a mechanical process which has the capacity to produce nothing more than automatons who can recite the accepted answer when the proper button is pushed but who are totally incapable of the type of rational involvement which can cope with the unexpected and produce a degree of problem solving ability. In short, the only thing that an indoctrination-oriented educational process produces are walking encyclopedias who are out of date before they are graduated.

Truth must be sought, and this means that the truth seeker must constantly question accepted dogmas. The life of Alexander Campbell is a powerful testimony to the validity of this principle. Of course, such a critical attitude is impossible within an environment where people are convinced that they have arrived at the truth and must, therefore, dedicate themselves to its protection and preservation . . . and this is precisely the environment which unfortunately characterizes the campuses of our “Christian Colleges.”

The evidence of this condition is overwhelming. For one thing, prospective faculty members are carefully screened to make certain that they are ironclad supporters of every tenet of the “mainstream” Church of Christ creed (and I’m not talking about the New Testament). Accordingly, anyone believing in musical instruments, one cup, or missionary societies or who is opposed to located ministers, orphan’s homes or the Herald of Truth is absolutely taboo. Such tests of academic acceptability would be bad enough if they were confined to those applying to teach in the Religion Department, but the really ridiculous thing is that they are applied equally to prospective Chemistry, Agriculture, and Music teachers—as well as everyone else! Even more disgusting is the way in which this doctrinal testing as a condition for employment has spread to include an applicant’s political, economic and social beliefs. As a political science professor, I know first hand that our “Christian Colleges” are anxious to acquire social science teachers who are sympathetic to right wing political doctrines. After all, it is common knowledge that the vast majority of our brotherhood are advocates of States’ Rights and unfettered free enterprise—in fact, advocates to the point of arguing that these are the only political and economic positions that are compatible with Christianity. Again, the truth has been discovered and it must be protected, and our “defender of the faith” colleges have rushed to fulfill this role. Allow me to relate one of many personal experiences which I have had along this line. About a year ago I was the “master of ceremonies” at a week long area wide meeting conducted by one of the leading evangelists in our brotherhood, a man who also happened to be a professor of Bible at one of our church related colleges. One day as we were eating lunch together, he began to “feel me out” on the Vietnam issue. When it became apparent that I was a supporter of United States policy in Asia, he suddenly sighed with relief and enthusiastically encouraged me to apply for an opening at his college. Little if any consideration was given to my academic preparation or my teaching ability. The crucial factor was our harmony of opinion on a political issue. I happen to know as a fact that his attitude reflected the thinking of the administration of his college. What is really funny about this whole incident is that I have shifted my position on the Vietnam question several times both before and after our conversation—but I guess that too is “unthinkable.”

Another manifestation of our colleges’ indoctrinational approach to education is their attitude toward special campus speakers. Every attempt is made to insulate the students from any unorthodox view. Lectureships are discreetly arranged to provide the audience with one particular viewpoint regarding any controversial issue. Chapel programs are glorified Sunday School sessions reserved for either patriotic speeches or creedal reaffirmations. To extend an invitation to a Baptist theologian to present a series of lectures would be considered heretical, despite the fact that he may have served as the primary graduate instructor of many of the professors in the Religion Department! One of our colleges recently got so carried away in its campaign for doctrinal purity on all fronts that the administration canceled a talk by one of the country’s most popular news broadcasters on the grounds that he was “too controversial.” Please note: this man was a news broadcaster, not a commentator, and had probably never spoken a single controversial word in public in his entire life. But what if he had? That’s right, let’s suppose he was a very controversial person-so controversial in fact that his appearance would have elicited pickets. Would this have been justifiable grounds for dismissal of his talk? Isn’t this precisely the type of person that a student needs to hear? What makes this particular episode even sillier is that a few weeks later the same college administration was more than happy to endorse the idea of a student parade down the main street of town in support of United States policy in Vietnam. Now I ask you, what could possibly be more controversial than a student demonstration that blocks traffic? I know a student demonstration in opposition to American policy! But that too would be “unthinkable.”

Is it any wonder that our “Christian Colleges” are finding it next to impossible to attract and retain adequate faculty? Of course there are many other complicating factors such as heavy teaching loads, poor salaries, and low academic standards—to name only a few. But in my opinion the academic environment is the fundamental problem. A person who has completed years of reputable graduate work preparing himself for the stimulating role of an educator just simply is not attracted by the prospect of serving in the academically suffocating role of propagandist. Tragically—but predictably—those few hardy souls who have attempted to buck the system have either been clubbed into submission or drummed our of the ranks as “trouble makers.”

I have a feeling that I have overstated my case, because I am convinced that the majority of our brotherhood would readily admit the validity of the charges that I have brought against our colleges. For again, most of our brethren are convinced that we have a monopoly on the truth—and if one is engulfed in this conviction, then it is only natural that he should desire a parochial educational system that will defend the faith to his children.

No, I do not blame the administrations of our colleges for the stifling atmosphere of indoctrination which pervades their campuses. I blame the rank and file members of the Church. Our colleges exist to serve them, and the policies of our higher educational institutions are simply a reflection of the childish attitudes of the parents of our college aged young people.

But there are winds of change blowing. There is a fire of unrest within our brotherhood that cannot be quenched, for its fuel is the vigor and dynamism of a youth seized with the truth seeking spirit of Alexander Campbell. Yes, our young people are challenging and questioning as they have never done before; and the shibboleths of today will be the inevitable victim of this intellectual upheaval, just as a truer understanding of God’s love and grace will be its product.

(The author received his Ph.D. degree from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, a graduate school in international relations which is administered jointly by Tufts and Harvard Universities. He is an Assistant Professor of Government at Austin College, but is currently serving as a Fulbright Lecturer at the University of the Philippines in Manila. He may be addressed care of the American Embassy, U. S. Educational Foundation, Manila.)

Loyalty to the New Testament is doing for our time what they did for their time, not to do what they did. I am intolerant of those who demand conformity.—Henry J. Cadbury