Dr. Niel Nielson

The Winter 2010 issue of Christian Scholar’s Review includes an article titled “A Slippery Slope to Secularization? An Empirical Analysis of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities,” by Samuel Joeckel and Thomas Chesnes, both on the faculty of Palm Beach Atlantic University. The article presents the authors’ analysis of results of a 2007 survey of 1,900 CCCU faculty, concluding that “these institutions are hardly descending a slippery slope to secularization.” They go on to argue that “overzealous vigilance against secularization proves counterproductive” to the appropriate ethos and aims of higher education.

The authors claim that their data “suggest that faculty at CCCU institutions are firmly committed to Christian higher education,” basing that judgment, at least in part, on the following responses:
• 98% strongly or somewhat agree with “My college/university should maintain its Christian identity”;
• 94% strongly or somewhat agree with “I have a good idea of what is meant by the phrase, ‘the integration of faith and learning’”;
• 84% strongly or somewhat agree with “It is not difficult for me to integrate faith and learning in my discipline.”

They also claim that their data “suggest that CCCU institutions are places where faith is nurtured and strengthened,” with 79% reporting that, “as a result of the time spent at their college/university, their faith has either become much or somewhat stronger” (sic).

So here is their conclusion:

Based upon our data, we conclude that the dangers of secularization, insofar as they apply to the CCCU, have been overstated. Survey participants overwhelmingly endorse the Christian identity of their institutions; participants also understand and practice the integration of faith and learning.

Finally, they quote approvingly an author who refers to “the myth of declension” which “has cramped our thinking and narrowed our reflection on the nature and character of Christian scholarship.” (Rodney Sawatsky, Scholarship and Christian Faith: Enlarging the Conversation)

I can only begin to scratch the surface of the serious and complex issues which the authors gloss over in their effort to convince us that everything is just fine in Christian higher education — and that any who claim otherwise should be characterized as over-vigilant, hyper-conservative, closed-minded indoctrinators. . . in other words, the real problem. Click to continue »

A couple of months ago, my wife and I traveled to watch a Covenant men’s soccer match – a purposeful and delightful journey as our son David was playing defensive midfielder in his senior season on the team.

During breakfast at the bed-and-breakfast where we stayed, we met a couple who both work for a Fortune 500 company and who, upon learning that I am president of a college, asked me what I thought about the preparedness of today’s college graduates for work in the world.

The context for their question was that, although their company recruits from the very “best” colleges and universities, the college degree seemed to them to guarantee virtually nothing about what these graduates know or are able to do – and this with respect not only to business knowledge and competencies but also to more general abilities to speak and write well and to work effectively with others. They also noted that today’s graduates have little sense of the wider world and its significant systems (economic, political, social, cultural, etc.). The company’s training programs, therefore, assume almost nothing except simple reading skills.

This couple’s observation is not theirs alone: According to a recent survey of employers, only 24% of today’s college graduates are “excellently prepared” for even entry-level positions.

While there may be multiple reasons for the weak condition of graduates’ preparedness, one important factor may be the increasingly nonprescriptive curricula of American colleges and universities. The American Council of Trustees and Alumni recently released “What Will They Learn: A Report on the General Education Requirements at 100 of the Leading Colleges and Universities,” which graded these institutions on their course requirements in seven key subjects: English composition, literature, foreign language, U.S. government or history, economics, mathematics, and science. Forty-two of the 100 received a grade of “D” or “F” for requiring courses in two or fewer of these subjects, with twenty-five receiving “Fs” for one or no such courses. (For more information, go to http://whatwilltheylearn.com.)

Even among institutions which, for general subject areas like literature and history and science, have “distribution requirements” to satisfy which students can choose from among a group of courses, the listed courses for each area are often so varied in topic and depth that virtually no common understanding and competency can be ensured. In fact students are graduating with huge gaps in their knowledge.

It’s no wonder that diplomas from such institutions carry less and less assurance for employers, and it should be no wonder that those who pay for such education – through tuition, public funds, and donations – are asking more questions and expecting more accountability. Click to continue »

Last July, one of my blog postings focused on the appointment of Dr. Frances Collins as the new director of the National Institutes of Health. My principal purpose was to raise concern about how Dr. Collins, a professing Christian whose appointment to this new post has been hailed by many Christians, reconciles his Christian faith with his clear commitment to Darwinian evolution. I questioned the biblical adequacy of his approach, and encouraged believers who hold to the authority and sufficiency of the Bible to look elsewhere.

A major concern regarding evolution among Christians has been the possibility – or, as some would argue, the inevitability – of ethical implications and consequences which contradict biblical truth regarding the dignity and sanctity of human life. God’s direct and special creation of Adam and Eve, our historical first parents, in his own image provides a major biblical ground for the unique nature of human being and an important moral mandate for its protection. Give that up, as Dr. Collins is explicitly willing to do, and this most significant theological/ethical foundation for the protection of human life is more likely to fall.

One might wonder, then, what Dr. Collins’s views of the sanctity of human life are, given his dual profession of Christian faith and evolution. We are beginning to find out. Click to continue »

On November 20, at the National Press Club in Washington D.C., The Manhattan Declaration was publicly released. The Manhattan Declaration is a nine-page statement whose central burden is a clear, strong, and gracious articulation of crucial, biblically grounded moral convictions and commitments regarding the sanctity of human life, marriage, and religious liberty. To read the Declaration and see related items, go to http://www.manhattandeclaration.org.

Here are two paragraphs from the opening section:

While the whole scope of Christian moral concern, including a special concern for the poor and vulnerable, claims our attention, we are especially troubled that in our nation today the lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are severely threatened; that the institution of marriage, already buffeted by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is in jeopardy of being redefined to accommodate fashionable ideologies; that freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized by those who would use the instruments of coercion to compel persons of faith to compromise their deepest convictions.

 

Because the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as a union of husband and wife, and the freedom of conscience and religion are foundational principles of justice and the common good, we are compelled by our Christian faith to speak and act in their defense. In this declaration we affirm: 1) the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of every human being as a creature fashioned in the very image of God, possessing inherent rights of equal dignity and life; 2) marriage as a conjugal union of man and woman, ordained by God from the creation, and historically understood by believers and non-believers alike, to be the most basic institution in society and; 3) religious liberty, which is grounded in the character of God, the example of Christ, and the inherent freedom and dignity of human beings created in the divine image.

The more than 150 original signers, of which I am one, are from Protestant Evangelical, Catholic, and Orthodox communities. Evangelical signers include Joel Belz, Bryan Chapell, Ligon Duncan, Tim Keller, Al Mohler, Marvin Olasky, Harry Reeder, Joni Eareckson Tada, and Ravi Zacharias, and at least one has publicly expressed his rationale for signing.

I signed the Declaration for four principal reasons: Click to continue »

The U. S. Senate last week passed a $680 billion defense policy bill, to which was attached the “Matthew Shepard Act,” which adds physical attacks on people based on their sexual orientation or gender identity to the list of federal hate crimes.

The significance of the law’s passage lies not primarily in its protection against physical attacks–we rightly deplore such acts of violence against people–but in its recognition of sexual orientation and gender identity as constituting specially protected classes of persons. Such application of antidiscrimination law now opens the door for federal protection of these classes of persons in contexts such as employment (the Employment Non-discrimination Act), military service (repeal of the ban on homosexuality in the military), and the definition of marriage (repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act).

One has only to observe the progression of such legislation in countries like Australia and the United Kingdom to see where we may be headed in the United States. Click to continue »

As Kathleen and I watch our two married sons and their lovely wives consider future pathways, we are struck anew by God’s providence by which he is directing their steps in unpredictable, gracious, and remarkable ways. We – and they – are keenly aware that their “small” stories are integrally connected to God’s BIG story, and that God has seen fit throughout human history to compose his big story through the millions of small stories in which individuals and families and places and communities play their appointed roles. Most of the situations and episodes of those stories are what we would call ordinary rather than extraordinary: people living their daily lives, making mostly little decisions, learning, failing and succeeding, moving, changing jobs, getting married, having children, living in neighborhoods, participating in local churches, and on and on. And yet, in the mostly mundane details of life, God is fulfilling his cosmic purpose to bring all things into perfect unity under one Head, through the powerful gospel of Jesus Christ.

In the early chapters of the book of Joshua, we read of the gathering of God’s people as they prepare to enter the Promised Land. Click to continue »

One of our Biblical and Theological Studies faculty, Dr. Ken Stewart, has recently co-edited The Advent of Evangelicalism: Exploring Historical Continuities, with Dr. Michael Haykin of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. The book is an anthology of essays by a distinguished group of scholars continuing the important discussion which was particularly energized by David Bebbington’s 1989 book Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s.

Bebbington’s principal aim was to present the rise and meaning of evangelicalism within its contemporary and wider historical and cultural context, and his central thesis is “that evangelical religion is the result of transatlantic revival in the 1730s, and that it took a cooperative attitude toward the Enlightenment rather than a contradictory one.” This main idea, simple in such brief presentation here, bears breadths and depths of significance as Bebbington unpacks the key characteristics of evangelicalism as he sees it: conversionism (emphasis on conversion), activism (emphasis on active witness), biblicism (emphasis on the authority of the Scriptures), and crucicentrism (emphasis on the centrality of the cross). Bebbington’s “quadrilateral” definition of evangelicalism in these terms has become the accepted view of virtually all subsequent descriptions, so much so that it is regularly referenced without citation. Click to continue »

This past Friday, we welcomed our new students to campus for the beginning of the 2009-2010 academic year. Rainless cloud cover provided a comfortable environment for unloading packed vehicles and toting boxes, and, as usual, Covenant “veterans” made moving in a delightful and relatively easy process for the newest members of the Covenant community. See pictures of this year’s Move-In Day here, and watch an audio slideshow about Move-In Day here.

The previous evening, our entire Student Development team was joined by other campus folks for the annual prayer walk through all the hallways of all our residence halls. As we filed silently past every doorway, adorned with the names of those who would soon occupy each room, we breathed prayers for God’s blessing on the new and returning students. We ended up in the large, beautiful lobby of Carter Hall for a time of corporate prayer and mutual encouragement as we look forward to the Lord’s gracious and sovereign work among us all.

Just last night, faculty and staff hosted groups of new students for dinner in their homes. Click to continue »

This week I want to call this blog’s readers’ attention to two of Covenant’s many programs, one because it is unique among Covenant’s program offerings and the other because it is a relatively new initiative that is off to a wonderful start.

Covenant has one graduate program, the Master of Education program, now in its eighteenth year. The program, offering two tracks (Educational Leadership and Integrated Curriculum and Instruction), combines three-week summer campus residencies with pre- and post-campus coursework so that working teachers and administrators can continue in their educational roles during the school year and also benefit from a dynamic learning community on Lookout Mountain each summer.

In mid-July, I had the privilege of hosting a luncheon for those M.Ed. students in their final year. Click to continue »

Recently President Obama nominated Dr. Francis Collins to lead the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Collins’s view of the compatibility between science and religion raises particularly intriguing questions about the proper understanding and use of the Scriptures.

Dr. Collins, a convert to Christianity at age 27 and author of The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, is well-known for his contention that there is no conflict between science and revealed religion, that these ways of knowing are compatible and complementary. In this regard he has become a kind of poster child for many Christians, providing a persuasive response to secularists’ contention that there is no place for committed Christians and the Christian God in scientific theory and practice. Click to continue »