In Why We Love the Church, authors Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck contend that “being part of a church – and learning to love it – is good for your soul, biblically responsible, and pleasing to God.” They lean hard against a collection of contemporary voices who, often despairingly or cynically or angrily, describe the institutional church as outdated, irrelevant, dead, and even harmful. With wit and reference to their own personal experiences, DeYoung and Kluck draw deeply on the Scriptures, theology, church history, and the examples of thriving and gospel-purposeful churches to present a compelling case for the structure, discipline, preaching, community, and mission of organized churches.

In The Church and the Surprising Offense of God’s Love, author Jonathan Leeman contends that “insofar as the gospel presents the world with the most vivid picture of God’s love, and insofar as church membership and discipline are an implication of the gospel, local church membership and discipline in fact define God’s love for the world.” This book is an extended explication of the love of God realized and displayed in and through the life and historic practices of the local church, and, with DeYoung and Kluck, Leeman provides a profound and arresting response to those who propose that the church is either irrelevant or antithetical to God’s saving and sanctifying love.

I suppose that a primary reason why I appreciate these two books is that their themes connect with Covenant’s historic church-related identity and commitment. Covenant is formally part of an ecclesiastical community: we are owned by the Presbyterian Church in America, and we exist foundationally to serve families and churches of the PCA as well as of other like-minded and like-hearted church fellowships. So, while Covenant is itself a college and not a local church, our guiding theological convictions and our covenantal responsibility for the education we provide are aligned with and supportive of our overseeing church body.

This means that we seek to recruit students from our partner churches and church bodies. It is one of our great delights to join with parents and church leaders in fulfilling God’s centuries-long plan for one generation to declare his praises to the next generation. We are intentional in making financial aid available to enable this church-serving purpose, through a number of scholarship programs including the Church Scholarship Promise program. Along with Matthew Bryant, director of church relations, and many others from Covenant, I spend a high percentage of my time visiting churches, schools, and communities to make our purpose known.

But it also means that what we do on campus is intentionally designed to serve this church-partnering purpose as well. Professors in every discipline are church men and church women, modeling the connections between their teaching and scholarship and their participation in a local congregation. Throughout the week, our students hear their faculty talk about their church involvements, and then on Sundays they see their faculty actively engaged and serving.

From the first day that new students arrive on campus, they hear our call to become part of a local church, and maps and rides are available. On Sunday mornings, our students scatter to a host of churches around the Chattanooga area. What a blessing to know that these churches are eager to have our students join their congregations, and that our students are sitting under the regular teaching and preaching of the Word of God, participating in the sacraments, enjoying the fellowship of other generations, and finding areas of service. Pastors and other church leaders regularly visit our campus to meet with their attending students.

And then, of course, these students become alumni, moving into other communities around the country and the world where they carry on with active and fruitful church life.

Throughout the year, a large number of students participate in off-campus ministry, in both local and global settings, and these ministry opportunities are most often connected with local churches. In the last few years, Kathleen and I have had the privilege to lead student groups to serve alongside church-based ministries in Romania, Kenya, and India, and this May we’re heading to South Africa. Our students are blessed to witness the work of the gospel primarily through the church, and I’m encouraged that this focus on the church will be the focus of their ministry throughout their lives.

Finally, our chapel program, under Rev. Aaron Messner’s leadership, shares with our larger church family important foundational commitments regarding the reading and preaching of the Scriptures, sound theological reflection, gospel mission, community service, mercy ministry, and the application of God’s truth to every aspect of life. Speakers from on campus and off bring messages and addresses that challenge all of us in these areas.

In an important sense, then, DeYoung, Kluck, and Leeman are preaching to the choir! But as we at Covenant lean against a larger trend to move away from “organized religion” and the worship and work and discipline of the local church, I am very grateful for these strong and instructive voices. I trust you’ll find encouraging both these books and the lively church connectedness of Covenant College.

(In my previous blog posting, I wrote:

It’s important to add that, while declension is not myth, open-endedness certainly is, as if any education or any educator is free from starting-points and presuppositions – what Palmer calls a “template” — that shape and direct, and in large measure determine, the learning outcomes in students’ beliefs and values. I will address the myth of open-endedness in my next posting.

With apologies for the delay, I will post on that topic next time.)

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.

First, the authors’ data and analysis represent shallow scholarship at best, and will hardly do for their purpose. Certainly, if secularization is measured merely by the presence or absence of certain phrases, such as “Christian identity,” or “integration of faith and learning,” then any institution which continues to use those phrases is, by that standard, not succumbing to secularization. And it is the case that these phrases are broadly accepted and used among institutions who publicly aver their Christian commitment and who are willing members of the CCCU, which is an association of self-professedly “Christ-centered” colleges and universities.

But surely the concern regarding secularization deserves more than such a simplistic approach. While these faculty self-reports are interesting, they leave the deeper questions of meaning and interpretation completely unaddressed. It’s good to know that faculty think their institutions should maintain their Christian identities – but what do they mean by Christian? What is the nature of the faith that is being integrated with learning, and how does that integration actually happen? And how do today’s answers to these questions compare or contrast with the answers that were given at their institutions in previous generations? Only with a careful analysis of meanings and historical progression could these survey results even come close to supporting the authors’ conclusions.

One of the characteristics of historic slippage is that those slipping often deny it; that is, they claim to be continuing to support historic commitments and convictions, using the language of their traditions and, in some cases, claiming to be more in accord with the tradition than their more immediate predecessors. We are witnessing just such a dynamic in the American Episcopal church, where the push for recognition of homosexual marriage and ordination of homosexuals to the ministry is explicitly explained in “Christian” terms: the love of God, the grace and inclusivity of the gospel, etc. We at Covenant experienced such an approach during our interaction with the homosexual advocacy group Soulforce, who, on the basis of their view of the Bible and the gospel, denounce our convictions as unChristian and call for fundamental change in our policies on “biblical” grounds.

The mere use of the language of Christian faith is not enough, and it makes sense to want to know what actual meanings are in play in the use of such terms. This is why I encourage parents and others to ask further questions, of schools and churches and organizations: What do they mean by “Christian?” Exactly how do they describe the authority of the Scriptures, and what place does the Bible hold for scholarship and campus life? What do they believe the biblical gospel is? These terms must not become shibboleths, which we intone as a kind of mantra of identity and faithfulness. These terms have identifiable histories and meanings which have helped to provide theological and ecclesiological definition and continuity across the generations. We do well to use them carefully, and to evaluate carefully their use by others.

The example of homosexual advocacy is especially appropriate here, in that the authors point out that there was a minority of survey respondents who “either strongly or somewhat agreed that their college/university has been influenced negatively by secularism.” This minority group tended to have, in the authors’ words, theologically, epistemologically, and politically “conservative” responses to a set of further questions on topics such as biblical inerrancy and authority, homosexuality, abortion, stem cell research, and abstinence-only sex education.

So here’s the picture. Those who believe that secularism/secularization is a danger tend to be those who believe: that the Bible is inerrant in the original manuscripts; that practicing homosexuals should not be allowed membership in a Christian church; that embryonic stem cell research is wrong; that abortion should be illegal; and that abstinence-only sex education is appropriate. By contrast, those who do not believe that secularism/secularization is a danger tend to be those who do not have – at least not as strongly as the minority – these convictions.

It’s hard to imagine that the authors would not understand that, for many of their readers, their data is convincing in exactly the opposite direction from their own conclusion, i.e. that secularism really is a problem and secularization has in fact been happening. The rejection of biblical authority, the denial of the sanctity of human life, the approval of sexual perversion – these are in fact indicators of the very secularization which the authors are seeking to deny.

The conclusion, then, could more accurately be put thus: Those who don’t acknowledge secularism and its impact don’t think it’s a problem. Or, declension must surely appear a myth for those who can’t recognize it or won’t acknowledge it. Such blindness, willing or not, to the reality of declension is sad indeed, not only for those who suffer from it, but even more so for the generations of students whose education is shaped and directed by those whose discernment has been so dulled.

Again, I must emphasize the authors’ point: Those concerned about secularization tend to be those who hold theological, epistemological, and moral views more in line with historic Christian orthodoxy and orthopraxy (the authors use the term “conservative”), while those not concerned about secularization tend to be those whose theological, epistemological, and moral views represent a move away from historic Christian orthodoxy and orthopraxy. (In contrast to “conservative” I suppose the appropriate term would be “liberal,” although the authors don’t use it.) While I’m glad to have the survey to substantiate this, it does seem hardly necessary.

The second leg of the authors’ argument is that an overbearing vigilance against secularism leads to…

…a homogenous academic culture that intimidates into silence those who disagree… threatening to stifle a thriving academic environment founded on open and honest conversation.

Citing both quantitative and qualitative data from faculty, the authors raise concern about “substandard intellectual rigor” and the negative effect on faculty of institutional policies and their students’ “closed minds.”

Here are two faculty comments:

Being afraid that at some point, the denominational convention and our convention-appointed trustees will decide some of us are not Christian enough for them, and will try to shove us out. (sic)

The narrow and rigid ideological framework – suspicious of the world and even ideas themselves – that most students bring to their university education makes the difficult task of teaching them all the more difficult.

The authors approvingly quote Parker Palmer:

A spirituality of ends wants to dictate outcomes of education in the life of the student. It uses the spiritual tradition as a template against which the ideas, beliefs, and behaviors of the student are to be measured. The goal is to shape the student to the template by the time that his or her formal education concludes. Authentic education wants to open us to truth – whatever truth may be, wherever truth may take us. Such a spirituality does not dictate where we must go, but trusts that any path walked with integrity will take us to a place of knowledge. Such a spirituality encourages us to welcome diversity and conflict, to tolerate ambiguity, and to embrace paradox.

In contrast, then, to “stentorian exhortations against slipping down the slope to secularism,” the authors sound warnings “against a different, inverse danger: the formation of a university so vigilant against secularization that it stifles the spirit of open inquiry and underestimates the value of diversity of thought.” (I won’t take time here to rehearse the well-documented trajectories of originally Christian institutions in the United States; the record of declension is so one-sidedly dismal that the authors’ concern regarding this “inverse danger” can hardly be persuasive.)

This section of the article is laden with caricatures of those who express concern about secularization and declension:
• “The idea there is not so much to educate as to indoctrinate….”
• “…a well-armored albeit shallow faith….”
• “…a homogenous culture that intimidates into silence those who disagree.”
• “…a very closed intellectual and social environment.”
• “Above all, present your college or university to prospective students and their parents as a safe place, where body, soul, and spirit can be protected through the dangerous years of adulthood.”
• “There is an expectation of some faculty and students that everything should have a verse to support it or it’s bad, or secular, which means it is not to be discussed.”

And there is the almost requisite reference to the usual bug-a-boo, Bob Jones University, as if the mere mention of BJU is sufficient to implicate a broad range of diverse perspectives and approaches in one easy sweep. I’ve even heard the fear expressed from time to time that, by intentionally focusing on fidelity to our founding mission, our missional convictions, and important implications for our academic community, Covenant may become “a Reformed Bob Jones.”

Of course the problem with using caricatures and associations is that, as most everyone knows, there are more than enough caricatures and suggestive associations to go around; but I’ll resist the temptation! Such tactics “work” in most cases because of the emotional reactions the caricatures and associations evoke, and also because of the important distinctions they avoid. Dr. Jay Green, professor of history at Covenant, has written a very thoughtful essay on how people use historical analogies, laden with powerful connotations and often unaccompanied by careful analysis, for rhetorical purposes (forthcoming in a book Green is co-editing entitled Confessing History: Essays on the Exploration of Faith and the Historian’s Vocation). We’ve all heard phrases like “another Vietnam” or “another Hitler” – or in the context of Christian higher education “another Harvard” or “another Bob Jones.”

Regarding the Christian educational enterprise, we can and must recognize the essential aspects of genuine education: willingness to explore, to ask questions, to be open to new ideas and directions. But Christian education is not, and was never intended to be, unqualifiedly open-ended, and thus Parker Palmer’s “authentic education” is not Christian education. The Bible itself presents from its opening chapters a spirituality of ends, and the entire Scriptural storyline is eschatological, i.e. it unfolds with its final consummation in view. In contrast to Parker’s and the authors’ recommending “any path walked with integrity,” the Bible points us again and again to one path, one way, one gate, one ending to the story, and one Savior and King.

Informed by this biblical framework, true Christian education pursues teaching and learning, with energy and diligence and seriousness, within the context of historic theological and moral convictions, grounded in the Scriptures, gathered around the person and work of Jesus Christ, and passed down to us by our fathers and mothers in the faith. And true Christian education proceeds purposefully with an end in view: through the exploration and expression of the preeminence of Jesus Christ in all things, to bring about the moral and intellectual discipleship and sanctification of God’s people for the gospel and God’s eternal purposes.

It’s important to add that, while declension is not myth, open-endedness certainly is, as if any education or any educator is free from starting-points and presuppositions – what Palmer calls a “template” — that shape and direct, and in large measure determine, the learning outcomes in students’ beliefs and values. I will address the myth of open-endedness in my next posting.

The authors’ rightful criticism of narrow-minded educational approaches which preempt genuine inquiry and thought must be complemented, for Christians, by an analogous criticism of educational approaches which gradually reject the pattern of sound words delivered to us dependably in the Scriptures, words which communicate to us the faith once for all delivered to the saints, words which are God’s words regarding himself, ourselves, his world, and his purposes. Those words don’t answer all questions, nor do they stifle energetic and far-reaching inquiry; the impressive history of faithful Christian scholarship proves that beyond doubt. But they provide the framework for Christian education by which we seek to disciple students toward godly worship in heart, mind, and deed.

In their own characterization of the educational enterprise, the authors, professors at a Christian college, focus almost exclusively on the open-ended nature of the academic task and fail to mention the Bible, Jesus Christ, the gospel, the church, the Kingdom, or any of the biblical themes that have across the centuries provided grounding and direction and purpose for the Christian intellectual and educational enterprise. Perhaps this is oversight or, in their view, a different topic. But it is appropriate to ask what role, if any, these elements of historic Christian faith and scholarship play in their conception of Christian education.

Further, and contrary to the authors’ caricatures, our whole-hearted embrace of the biblical template for Christian thought and education does not rest on fear, either of creative and vigorous intellectual exploration, or of the world around us in all its complexity, or of our students’ futures as men and women of God. It rests on the glorious and trustworthy truth and grace of Jesus Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, and who in all things is preeminent. Our work is joyful and hopeful, not despairing. It willingly engages, and does not avoid, the full range of subjects and questions. It is curious, thoughtful, and courageous, and is not nervous about our students’ faith or our standing in the eyes of others.

Genuine Christian education won’t settle for falling off the path on either side – either the simplistic and stifling approach which the authors (and I) reject, or the equally simplistic and ultimately goal-less approach which they propose (which doesn’t actually exist). We must live and teach and learn in the tensions among the pathways of our academic inquiry and the sure and dependable revelation of God in the Bible and the truth and grace of the gospel of Jesus Christ. This means, at Covenant, that we continually wrestle with deep and difficult questions, not simply in an open-ended journey to anywhere, but as those gripped with the majesty of the faith we profess and our Kingdom calling, looking toward the consummation of all things in the eternal reign of Jesus Christ. Anything less is a spiritual and intellectual cop-out.

At Covenant we happily embrace our distinctive calling to first-rate and rigorous Christian education with a God- and gospel-focused end in view.

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.

The concept of core academic requirements is built on the underlying view that, by the time of graduation, every student should have read and studied a common body of knowledge, and should have learned a common set of competencies. Such common knowledge and competency are essential, the argument goes, for someone to be a truly educated person and to be prepared for the complex challenges of living and working effectively in our world. Curricular requirements constructed on such a premise will look much different from those in settings where, as one college catalog puts it, “each student must design a program of study suited to individual interests and needs.”

Covenant’s core academic requirements are intentionally designed to provide the common understanding and competency to which I’ve just referred. Here are the sections from our Philosophy of Education statement which describe the character of our core curriculum:

The Core Curriculum

Important implications of our approach to Christian education are reflected in the concept of the core curriculum. During the course of their four years, students must choose to focus on a particular area of study in order to develop the basic skills needed for a successful apprenticeship in their chosen major. While these choices are important and necessary, many of the skills and understandings that students need are common across the disciplines and are the focus of the core curriculum. Therefore all students are required to take a set of courses designated as the core. This curriculum serves student growth in at least four ways.
• It nurtures the academic skills and presents background knowledge needed for achievement in all the specialized disciplines. The learning experience in core courses involves critical reading and discussion, analytic thinking, and evaluative writing on a broad range of cultural issues; these activities are intended to sharpen and deepen students’ skills for the more advanced courses.
• The broad scope of the core acquaints students with the rudiments of many different disciplines and offers students opportunities to reflect on the wide-ranging ways that God works within his magnificent creation. Such a panoramic view is important not only for a more complete Christian understanding of the world, but it also serves as a spring-board for many students to discover how their own interests and talents fit into the full spectrum of God’s calling for His people. This in turn helps students to make better-informed choices about how to narrow the development of their academic gifts.
• The interdisciplinary nature of the core helps students to see connections between disciplines. Also, they learn how knowledge which seeks to be faithful to God’s creation reflects an integrative worldview which is not fragmented but is unified and interrelated, such that our religious commitments are a connecting and underlying thread through all our knowing, being, and doing.
• The content of the core, a wide-ranging historical-cultural understanding of the relation of faith to the world, also aids in preparing students to serve in many communities and to meet a diversity of needs that they might not have otherwise recognized.

Note the statement’s clear reference not only to the academic merits and vocational usefulness of this approach, but also to the inherent connection of this approach with our theological convictions about God and his creation: Through our core curriculum, our aim is to help students discover the wonders of the many dimensions of God’s world and understand the interconnections among those dimensions, so that they become equipped to work integratively across all the contexts of their lives.

Such an approach runs against the grain of a culture in which many do not wish to be told what they need to learn and know. We should not miss the irony of the prevailing dogma that there is no dogma, of a generation indoctrinated with the view that there should be no indoctrination. At Covenant, walking as we do, with gratitude and devotion, on the pathway of biblical, Reformed Christianity and in the heritage of faithful Christian scholarship, we say to our students, “Here is what you must know and understand in order to be an educated Christian and to be prepared for fruitful work and service, to the glory of God.” Without apology, we declare that this is the heart of our mission, and we are delighted that students and families all around the world choose to join us in this worthwhile task.

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. On behalf of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Collins has given us some insight into how his “reconciliation” of Christianity and evolution may work out in public policy and practice: In December, he announced the release of the first thirteen lines of embryonic stem cells for use by the research community, and, calling this “the first down payment,” raised the prospect of more lines to be released in the future.

For someone of Christian faith, knowing as he must the ethical concerns that other Christians have about embryonic stem cell research, Dr. Collins might have been expected to offer some moral, if not theological, justification. In fact, his only reference of an ethical nature was his statement that the embryos had been donated “under ethically sound informed consent processes.” Other than that, he provides no moral reflection on how he reconciles the biblically grounded sanctity of the life of the human embryo with the purposeful destruction of these embryos for scientific use. Nor has he made clear, so far as I know, in what ways, if any, his leadership in the advance of embryonic stem cell research connects with his convictions about Darwinian evolution.

This nexus of Christian faith, biblical truth, evolution, and ethics is even more noteworthy for those of us in Christian higher education when we consider the work of the BioLogos Foundation, which Dr. Collins founded. The BioLogos Foundation is sponsoring two major projects focused on changing the nature of the discussion of evolution at Christian institutions of higher education. First, a series of workshops for Christian college faculty will consider issues related to evolution and how it can be taught at Christian colleges. Second, a series of books with the same focus, written by BioLogos authors, will be published by InterVarsity Press.

There is certainly need for thoughtful engagement among Christians with the very best of contemporary science and scientific theories, including evolution. Christians who oppose evolution are often under-informed or confused about it, and excellent education requires careful and comprehensive study of this very complex subject. For reference, see Tim Keller’s essay, published on the BioLogos website, addressing some of the concerns about evolution shared by Christians committed to biblical fidelity.

But let’s recognize not only the crucial issue of biblical authority, which I believe is at stake in how Dr. Collins goes about the matter of reconciling Christian faith and science, but also the undeniable fact that ideas have consequences. As I said earlier, it is not clear whether or not Dr. Collins’s support for embryonic stem cell research is an intentional consequence of his views on faith and evolution. Respect for his competence as a scholar and thinker would make it reasonable to assume that it is. Given his increasing influence among Christians and on Christian college campuses, it will be important for those of us committed to the sanctity of human life from conception to stay tuned.

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:

1. The convictions and commitments articulated in the Declaration (regarding the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife, and the rights of conscience and religious liberty) are clearly grounded in the Scriptures, fully consistent with the Westminster Standards, and increasingly necessary for God’s people to live out, no matter what the cost.
2. Our witness to the gospel of Jesus Christ is strengthened, not weakened, when Christians accurately and graciously lay out the implications of our biblical faith.
3. I carry a joyful burden to witness to, and be a faithful steward of, these truths for the sake of the rising generations whom we serve at Covenant College, so that they might be equipped for the challenges they will face in the decades ahead.
4. I am willing to make common cause in these matters with others with whom I continue to have deep theological differences, for the sake of the well-being of God’s church and the continuing work and ministry of Covenant College.

It is the last point which gets to the subject of this posting. In its opening section, the Declaration identifies the Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical signers as “Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences,” but it also includes statements and phrases which imply, or may imply, that these signers share a common faith and a common understanding of the gospel.

For example,

• “Christians are heirs of a 2,000-year tradition of proclaiming God’s Word;”
• “…the Gospel of costly grace;”
• “It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season.”

While I could unreservedly commit my name to the main body of the Declaration regarding sanctity of human life, marriage, and religious liberty, I hesitated to sign because of these references to the gospel, recognizing, as I must, that there is not a common understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ among the signers. In early November, in a string of email messages to a dear and trusted friend, who is a co-signer and in fact encouraged me to sign, I wrote:

This is not a definitive response to your request that I sign, but
it’s a continuation of the discussion.

 

The key question for me is: Am I willing to sign a statement like
this, along with Christian leaders who define what is stated as the
basis for the statement in very different ways?

 

For example, what do the Catholic leaders signing the statement mean
by: “It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior
Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of
season” (bottom of p. 2)? What is the “gospel” to them? Am I
comfortable signing the statement on the basis of my understanding
of the terms used, i.e. knowing full well that others signing it are
using those same terms to refer to very different things?

 

I wish that such theological language had been left out entirely,
and that the statement referred more directly and exclusively to the
issues themselves. But when such a statement as that at the bottom
of p. 2 is included, the document implies a theological agreement on
the content of the gospel – and thereby goes beyond co-belligerence
in a similar way as the ECT documents.

(ECT refers to Evangelicals and Catholics Together, a group that, over the last several years, has been creating statements which, in my opinion, intentionally aim at theological unity among Evangelicals and Catholics.)

In a later message, I wrote:

Could it be that, by avoiding clarification of the biblical gospel and giving — or allowing — the impression of agreement on such a basic matter as the content of the gospel, we are in fact, with every good intention, weakening our distinctive gospel witness?

 

… it’s hard for me to imagine that Colson and George, both ardent supporters of ECT, are not at some level still just as ardent about the theological reunifying of Protestant and Catholic communities. The theological language of the document — extraneous if the purpose is co-belligerence pure and simple — carries implications and connotations for theological agreement that I don’t think I can countenance.

 

Don’t get me wrong: We must work with all our energy, alongside all like-convicted others,…for the sanctity of unborn life, for marriage, for biblical sexuality, etc. Those are my deep and vital convictions, and I do my work at Covenant with fixed resolve on those matters, willing to accept all consequences and costs.

 

But this statement asks far more of me than that. Take out the “gospel” language, and I sign in an instant.

Finally, in response to my friend’s question about whether I would prefer a secular argument against abortion, gay marriage, etc. to a deficient Christian/biblical/gospel argument, I responded:

…for the purpose of such a common statement among the stated groups, I would prefer no argument at all to a deficient Christian/biblical/gospel argument, i.e. one which I believe is likely to create a misleading impression of common theological conviction about foundational matters. Rather, let’s together state our common convictions about the issues (perhaps even acknowledging that we come to those convictions via very different routes and for very different reasons, i.e. we disagree theologically but we all end up here on the issues), and together declare our common intentions to act according to those convictions.

(Not surprisingly, other Evangelicals have expressed similar concerns, including some who for such reasons decided not to sign the Declaration. See here, here, and here.)

These were the concerns that troubled me over several days as I contemplated signing the Declaration, and I include these messages here to make clear that I, undoubtedly along with other Evangelical signers, wrestled mightily with these issues on the way to signing. In fact, my conversations with folks on both sides of the sign-or-not-sign question had me leaning toward not signing.

At the same time my conviction about the importance of declaring shared commitments regarding the sanctity of human life, marriage, and religious liberty continued to grow, and that conviction was further strengthened as I read the Declaration’s final paragraph:

Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.

I realized as well that the Declaration, while implying that the signers may agree on the nature and meaning of the gospel, does not define the gospel in any way that I find objectionable, i.e. by signing I was not affirming any heterodox, unbiblical view of the gospel. My signature – and this is important – signals my agreement with the Declaration as it explicitly and specifically stands, and nothing more.

To critics of the Declaration who say that it implies agreement with Catholics and Orthodox on the nature and meaning of the biblical gospel, I say that such implication is possible but certainly not necessary. To critics of the Declaration who say that it commits the signers to agreement with Catholics and Orthodox on the nature and meaning of the biblical gospel, I say strongly, “No, it does not.” I disagree with official Catholic and Orthodox understandings of the gospel, and embrace wholeheartedly our Protestant Reformation theology, grounded in the Scriptures and summarized most beautifully and convincingly in the Westminster Standards. The Declaration not only does not in any way violate those Standards, but in fact flows from them.

Some have pointed to statements from Chuck Colson which reflect his views about the purpose and hoped-for outcome of the Declaration as evidence of how misguided Evangelicals have been in signing. Let me be clear: With as much respect and appreciation for Chuck as I have, I did not – and do not – sign on to his commentaries about the Declaration, nor do I expect him, or anyone else, to sign on to mine. Together we signed the Declaration because of what it states so clearly and well, and I, for one, did so with unswerving conviction about the biblical gospel and the biblical doctrines articulated in the Protestant Reformation.

I must add, even given what I have just said, that I dearly wish the gospel references had not been included in the Declaration. They introduce unnecessary ambiguity and provide unnecessary ground for the refusal of many Evangelicals to sign. With a more precisely disciplined focus on the main issues it addresses, the Declaration would have, I believe, garnered far wider support among Evangelicals and enabled this enterprise to have a vastly more far-reaching impact.

So that’s why I almost didn’t sign The Manhattan Declaration – and why I did. May God show mercy and favor on his church and his people as we proclaim the hope of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the grace of God —

…bringing salvation for all people and training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works (Titus 2:11-14).

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. In those countries, antidiscrimination legislation has significantly eroded protections of religious liberty and individual conscience, and well serves the increasing intolerance of any view which stands in the way of the agenda of homosexual activists and advocates. For example, under the new Equality Act in the U.K., it is now illegal for a church preferentially to hire professing and faithful Christians except for worship leaders or full-time teachers or preachers.

In a recent article in First Things, George Cardinal Pell, Archbishop of Sydney, makes clear the central tenet of the so-called sexual revolution from its very beginning: “limits on human sexual autonomy will not be tolerated.” Antidiscrimination law provides the social/political instrument for bringing down any scruple or hindrance to the full realization of that autonomy, especially if the scruple is grounded in a religious view that affirms that the individual person is not in fact autonomous. Thus those who believe in a God who has created and who rules all there is, and who has spoken his Word and his will for his creatures, are, along with their institutions and organizations, especially to be targeted in antidiscrimination legislation.

Cardinal Pell goes on to point out the self-defeating nature of the pursuit of unfettered human autonomy:

There are already abundant indications of human autonomy being diminished as sexual freedom becomes a driver of consumption and an organizing principle of economic life, with the reemergence of slavery in Europe and Asia, the booming exploitation of pornography and prostitution, and the commercialization of surrogacy, egg donation, and the production and destruction of human embryos and human stem-cell lines.

…Limits are an inescapable part of the human condition. The only questions are whether they will be the limits of servitude or the limits of freedom and whether self-love or love of others will predominate.

As troubling as the trends of antidiscrimination legislation are for Christians and Christian institutions, the tragic reality of where the pursuit of human autonomy takes individuals and cultures means that the message of the gospel – of God’s saving grace for sinners helpless and hopeless in their sin – is and will remain the best answer and our principal focus. Certainly we need to confront the intolerance and work vigorously to oppose the violation of our precious freedoms. We must persuasively argue against the perverse logic of this antidiscrimination trend and utilize all appropriate means to defend our institutional missions.

But let us most basically and most energetically be proclaimers of the gospel, offering the hope of escape from the horrific destiny of rebellion into the gracious rule of our loving and sovereign God. God may or may not choose to preserve Covenant College in these next decades; of course I pray that he does. But he will certainly draw all his own to himself, and he will bring his people safely home.

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. This was a “new” generation, most born during the forty years of wandering in the wilderness, having buried their parents along with Moses, and now pushing into the land under Joshua’s ordained leadership. They faced an unknown and somewhat terrifying territory, filled as it was with powerful enemies and the possibility of disaster and death.

Our sons and daughters-in-law, and all the younger folks in this rising generation, many of whom we serve at Covenant College, face a similarly unknown and somewhat terrifying future, with global military strife, the proliferation of nuclear arms, continuing economic uncertainty, interfaith tensions, and increasing threats to religious and civil liberties.

As I type this, I’m returning from a week of camping and horseback-riding in the Bridger-Teton National Forest, which abuts both Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks. It’s a mountainous region, filled with steep slopes, chilly streams, muddy bogs, fallen trees—and grizzly bears! For an inexperienced horseman, just staying on the horse on flat ground was intimidating enough. But to ride along narrow trails on the sheer sides of mountains, to hang on as my horse leapt across a stream or stumbled over a hidden stump – and then to crawl into my sleeping bag in the tent with the happy prospect of bears or wolves roaming just outside – well, I suppose I experienced a kind of living metaphor of what those folks standing by the Jordan River felt—and what, in a very real sense, every generation feels—as they looked forward with that inevitable mixture of excitement and dread.

In Joshua 5, having crossed the Jordan River and with enemies and dangers ahead, Joshua and God’s people obey God’s gracious instructions for those two ceremonies which (1) identified them as his chosen people and himself as their God (circumcision), and (2) reminded them of his powerful rescue – his redemption – from captivity in Egypt (Passover).

What a blessing for that generation, in the face of the uncertain and frightening future: to know by God’s gracious Word, visualized in these sacramental acts, that they were sovereignly his and that he was their sovereign Redeemer. For us as God’s people, with the full revelation of the Scriptures, we have the amazing privilege of this same gracious blessing, as we participate in the celebration of our identity as members of God’s family (through baptism) and as recipients of his salvation (through the Lord’s Supper). These sacraments shout out, in a kind of words that we can actually see and touch and taste, who we are and who our God is, in every generation, no matter how problematic the circumstances.

The chapter closes with that remarkable encounter of Joshua with the Commander of the Lord’s army – surely an appearance of the Second Person of the Godhead standing before Joshua with his sword drawn – who has come and who commands Joshua to take off his sandals for he is standing on holy ground. For those of us who belong to God and who are redeemed by God, there is not one spot on the face of the earth – not one circumstance or situation in life – that is not holy ground – the place where our Savior and Lord Jesus Christ rules in his holy might and holy mercy and where we are bound by his gracious call to worship and obey.

So, as our sons and daughters-in-law – and all this rising generation – stand in their respective spots in space and time, and as they peer into the uncertain years ahead, the story of Joshua 5 reminds them who they are – they are the sovereignly chosen people of the sovereign Lord God of the universe who will be with them wherever they go; and they are members of his redeemed people, whose sins are taken away by the blood of the cross and who are nourished continually by his grace in and through Jesus Christ.

Because that is who they are and because that is what God has done, any place is holy ground. May they – and we – never fear the enemies and troubles ahead, because Jesus Christ is the Commander of the Lord’s army, and he has come! And may they — and we — never forget that our stories, through joy and sorrow and triumph and trial, providentially participate in the grand, cosmic story of God’s sure fulfilling of his glorious purpose to reconcile all things to himself through Jesus Christ.

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.

Bebbington’s analysis has raised numerous important questions, including the one that is the primary interest of the authors in Dr. Stewart’s and Dr. Haykin’s volume. As foreward writer Timothy George of Beeson Divinity School puts it: “To what extent does evangelicalism of modern/postmodern times (say, from the conversion of John Wesley through to the era of Billy Graham) represent continuity or discontinuity with the preceding Christian story?” Bebbington’s work gives the nod to discontinuity, regarding evangelicalism as a significantly novel adaptation to changing conditions and changing opportunities. Others, including those in this volume, believe in various ways that Bebbington has overstated his case, and that important and deep continuities exist between evangelicalism and its older roots. George himself affirms that evangelicalism…

…is best understood as a renewal movement within historic Christian orthodoxy…shaped by the Trinitarian and Christological consensus of the early church, the formal and material principles of the Reformation, the missionary movement that grew out of the Great Awakening, and the new movements of the Spirit that indicate ‘surprising works of God’ are still happening in the world today.

The essays of the volume address this important question through examinations of (1) the historical connections between the Enlightenment and evangelicalism; (2) continuity/novelty in geographic regions, e.g. the British Isles, America, and Holland; (3) continuity/novelty across historical eras; and (4) continuity/novelty in doctrine. While acknowledging that Bebbington has significantly expanded our appreciation for key factors of the emergence and dynamism of evangelicalism, the authors give convincing reasons for evangelicalism’s place of belonging in the theological and missional stream of the early church and the Reformation.

Why is this important for us and our work at Covenant College? If Bebbington is right, then it becomes quite difficult to connect contemporary evangelical identity to older Christian roots. Evangelicalism becomes more identified with its ingenuities and idiosyncracies rather than with the community of all God’s people in all times and places. This leaves our generation’s evangelicals, including those of us who consider ourselves evangelical and Reformed, without that ancient legacy which both inspires faith and ministry and also provides necessary review and correction of current beliefs and practices.

Are there aspects of contemporary evangelicalism that we should consider outside the mainstream of historic, faithful, biblical Christianity? Of course there are, and there have been such in every generation throughout church history. The important point here is that we can embrace a truly evangelical identity consistent and in fact flowing through our Reformation roots and convictions, through our lineage across the earlier centuries of church history, and from our fundamental grounding in the text and story of the Holy Scriptures. At Covenant College, our evangelical faith is Reformed faith, and our Reformed faith is biblical faith, passed on faithfully across the generations and now to us. We delight to own this ancestry and in our day to give our voices and lives in witness to this faith once for all delivered to the saints.

Professors Stewart and Haykin, along with all the authors of The Advent of Evangelicalism, have done us biblical, Reformed, evangelical Christians a great service. They give us confidence that we are standing on the solid ground of historic, biblical Christianity as we serve Jesus Christ and his church faithfully and fruitfully in the ever-changing contexts of our lives.

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. Kathleen and I enjoyed hosting a group of transfer students, arriving at Covenant from such locales as upstate New York, Texas, Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina, and right here in Chattanooga. What a delight to hear their stories of how God has led them here!

New students are already heavily engaged in the many activities of Orientation Week, certainly including times of relationship-building and introduction to the campus and the Chattanooga area, but also zeroing in on their academic calling. Beginning last Friday evening and continuing on throughout the first half of the fall semester, the foundational course The Christian Mind introduces students to Covenant’s understanding of the purpose of a college education and the impact that we expect our faith in Christ to have on our work together.

Continuing students arrive this week, and our official year-opening Academic Convocation will be held Thursday morning, with Dr. Steve Kaufmann of Covenant’s education department giving the address.

This season of the year provides an important opportunity for deep reflection on our common task at Covenant, as together we seek to explore and express the preeminence of Jesus Christ in all things. Greeting students and parents always reminds us of the task entrusted to us as part of God’s covenantal blessing across the generations: joyfully rigorous higher education grounded in the authority and sufficiency of the inerrant Scriptures and in the framework of Reformed theological convictions, and energized by the gospel of Jesus Christ, the biblical vision of His eternal Kingdom, and the delight of serving His Church.

This year in particular brings reminders of the challenges facing all of us economically, culturally, and globally. What a blessing to see the commitment of families to pursue a Covenant education, bearing the cost for the sake of the marvelous benefits. It is a delight for us to be able to gather donors and provide financial aid to support this commitment.

We also contemplate the prospect of God’s work in and among and through all of us this year. While we certainly acknowledge that God may choose to show his powerful providence in dramatic, extraordinary ways, we eagerly embrace his ordinary providence – which is how he works his sovereign and gracious purposes most of the time. Through long hours of hard study, writing papers and taking exams, daily mealtimes, conversations among friends, sitting regularly under the preaching of the Word in local congregations and in chapel, exhausting athletic team workouts, diligent piano or violin practice, the discipline of part-time jobs – through all these ordinary means, God will surely delight in accomplishing exactly what he intends for our students and faculty and staff at Covenant.

We acknowledge as well that God’s plans for us this year may include difficulties and painful experiences and suffering that we would rather not face. But at this start of the year, we remind one another yet again of this:

…we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. (Romans 8:28-30)

This is the foundation of our confidence at the beginning of another year, that God is conforming us to the image of his Son, in all the eventualities of every day, and that he will faithfully and mightily continue to do so until he has finished what he has begun and we stand glorified in his presence.

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. The luncheon provides an annual opportunity for me to hear from them about the program – strengths, areas for improvement, personal experiences, humorous stories. Each year I come away from this gathering hugely encouraged – by the quality and purposefulness of the students, by their diligence in pursuing a graduate degree while holding down full-time jobs, and by their delight over what’s happened in their minds and hearts through the work of our fine faculty.

Included in the students’ comments this year were the following:

• Covenant’s professors are “living examples of their principles;” they “practice what they teach.”
• Relationships formed with professors and one another are powerful blessings, both professionally and personally.
• The coursework is challenging and also directly relevant to their daily work as teachers and administrators.
• Covenant’s faculty and staff demonstrate genuine interest, respond quickly to students’ needs, and “go above and beyond” normal expectations.

One of this past year’s graduates, Bill Alexander, Chair of the Bible Department at Davidson Academy in Nashville, TN, wrote in April to Dr. Jim Drexler, Dean of the Master of Education Program, to express his appreciation for the program:

I chose Covenant because of the set-up of the program (3 weeks of classes in the summer) and because of its academic reputation. I did not want to pay for a degree from a degree mill; I wanted to earn a degree from a quality program. The academic rigor at Covenant never disappointed, and I will always be proud to call myself a graduate of the M.Ed. program at Covenant. I feel as though I have earned a quality degree that represents the reputation of a great academic institution.

In my three years at Covenant I have grown in ways that I could not have imagined, both personally and professionally. I have grown in my understanding of God’s Kingdom. I have grown in my understanding of how to lead and be a part of a quality Christ-centered educational endeavor. I have learned what it means to create a vibrant, Christ-centered learning community, and I have met friends that I will keep for a lifetime. Covenant College challenged me and has, in my opinion, made me a much better person. For that I say thank you to the entire faculty. The experience has been one that I will treasure for the remainder of my days. (quoted with Bill’s permission)

The Master of Education program is just one example of the multiplier effect of a Covenant education, in this case as teachers and administrators from all over the country and even around the world put to work, with thousands and thousands of students, the principles and practices they’ve learned during their three-year graduate experience at Covenant College. The effects gloriously extend everywhere and across the years.

Second, I want to mention Covenant’s Economics program with its relatively recent academic major. Professors Brian Fikkert and Lance Wescher combine depth and breadth of academic competence with outstanding teaching ability and keen interest in students, and our first cohort of economics graduates this past May demonstrates the quality of the program even in its early years. Results from the Economics Major Field Test show our students performing in the 85th to the 99th percentile in the four sub-areas of microeconomics, macroeconomics, quantitative analysis, and international issues. This excellent performance against national standards bears witness to the high caliber of both instruction and learning.

Beyond test scores, these graduates have come to understand economics in the context of biblical convictions and categories, so that the gospel of Jesus Christ and the Scripture’s call to faithful obedience and stewardship will shape their work in the future. Here is the department’s description of this larger, Kingdom purpose, no matter what the context in which our graduates will work:

…human stewardship is not autonomous but takes place within God’s sovereign plan as expressed through His unfolding story of creation, fall, redemption, and consummation. This framework shapes the manner in which the department analyzes and critiques the ways in which individuals, communities, and nations have responded to their stewardship responsibilities.

Students pursuing the economics major or minor are well prepared for graduate study in a range of disciplines and for careers in government, international agencies, non-government organizations, and the corporate sector.

With the entire world enduring economic convulsions and dramatic restructuring, it is very exciting to anticipate the contributions that Covenant’s economics graduates will be able to make, pursuing God’s calling by putting sound economic theory into practice within the framework of biblical truth and for the glory of Jesus Christ.

(A personal note: Our youngest son David is a rising senior economics major, and I can attest not only to the academic quality of the program but also to the encouragement he receives from his professors. In particular, Dr. Wescher has drawn David into the complex world of healthcare economics, and Kathleen and I delight in watching our son, whose aspirations at this point are for a business career, enthusiastically exploring possible pathways for the years beyond college.)

The Master of Education program and the Economics major are just two of the multitude of ways that we seek to fulfill Covenant’s overall mission to equip students to speak and lead and serve biblically and proficiently in all the spheres of human culture. What a joy to see it happening!