Not all Christian schools are the same.

There are various ways Christian schools understand how the Christian part of their identity intersects with the educational part. That is, there are various models of Christian higher education. Over the last few years, I’ve had the chance to be part of two Christian schools. The two schools are similar in some ways and different in others. As I’ve worked in the realm of Christian higher education and continue to grow professionally, I’ve come to realize that there are several different understandings of what constitutes a Christian college or university.

I want to introduce the reader to some of the models of Christian education at the college level. This post is mainly descriptive, though I’ll end by offering brief thoughts on the various models presented. My thinking about this topic has been stimulated by my experience as a professor and administrator, my reading of The Idea of a Christian College by Arthur Holmes, and, more recently, a short article/video by Dr. Robin Baker, the president of George Fox University in Oregon.

Open vs. Closed Enrollment

To begin, let me introduce two important categories. Some Christian schools practice open-enrollment. Other schools would describe themselves as closed-enrollment. Understanding these two categories helps us understand why some schools, like Southwest Baptist University (where I serve) have both Christians and non-Christians enrolled and why a place like Cedarville University (where I have friends who serve) admits only professing believers.

Open-Enrollment Christian Schools—these are institutions where enrollment is open to people from all walks of life. In other words, you do not have to profess faith in Christ to attend the University. The school is still “Christian” in the sense that the staff, faculty, and administration are professing believers and the Christian worldview is openly embraced. The school may even have a clear “statement of faith” that it requires employees to affirm (thus, a type of confessionalism marks the institution) and potentially a code of conduct that reflects Christian morals.

Closed-Enrollment Christian Schools—in contrast, some schools require both employees and students to profess faith in Jesus. These schools are closed to non-Christians. The school may even ask the applicant to verbally share their testimony during an interview or submit their testimony in writing. The school, again, likely has a statement of faith and is thus confessional.

I’ve worked in both contexts (Bethlehem College & Seminary was a closed-enrollment school, and Southwest Baptist University is an open-enrollment school). I’m not offering any judgment on the two approaches. The point here is that not all Christian schools approach the enrollment question in the same way. Having these categories in mind helps you understand the landscape better.

Robin Baker’s Categories

Beyond the open vs. closed enrollment categories, Dr. Baker, President of George Fox, offers four models that a University might use to approach Christianity.

• Model 1: A Moral Commitment—these types of institutions focus on character building, but “there’s no real emphasis on spiritual formation or on Christian truth.” That is, they “have ethical commitments [and are thus] oriented toward values.” These ethics and values are seemingly borrowed from a Judeo-Christian tradition.
• Model 2: Dualistic—some schools operate by placing Christianity alongside the academic experience, but the “university itself is separate from Christianity by definition…” In these places, Christianity is not necessarily excluded but isn’t tied intimately to or “encouraged in” the academic areas.
• Model 3: Closed Integrative Communities—like the definition of “closed” offered above, these integrative communities are closed in the sense that only professing Christians are admitted. Then, the Christian faith is “integrated” into the whole life of the school (academics, athletics, student life, etc).
• Model 4: Open Integrative Communities—referring to the above, this type of Christian school is “open” in the sense that Christians and non-Christians alike are admitted. The staff and faculty are Christians, but students come from all walks of life. Yet, the Christian faith is still integrated into the larger work of the entire institution.

As for the models, Model 1 and 2 are less impressive to me as a Christian educator. In terms of Model 1, he lists Pacific Lutheran as an example of this type of school. Pacific has a history of being a Christian school, but it seems to have merely emphasized Western values instead of specifically Christian values, according to Baker. This type of place, focused on promoting certain values, could be considered Christian if the values it promotes are, in fact, Christian (i.e., biblical). In terms of Model 2, Dr. Baker gives two ways to think about a dualistic approach. The first way Dr. Baker mentions doesn’t seem Christian in any real sense. That is, Christianity and the institution are “separate,” and Christianity is not “encouraged” in the classroom. He lists Oregon State University as an example, but as far as I can tell, OSU does not claim to be Christian. The second way to think about a dualistic approach is more helpful. Here, Christianity is an “add-on” to the collegiate experience. At these institutions, you “may have Christians in the classroom…Christians who are part of the campus,” and thus the co- and extra-curricular activities are the avenues through which the Christian experience is mediated. Christianity, however, is left “outside the classroom.”

Models 3 and 4 are more helpful categories when thinking about types of seriously Christian schools. These two represent two approaches to “integrative communities.” The closed versus open discussion was referenced above. In Model 3, the closed enrollment, integrative community is represented by a place like Cedarville University or Bethlehem College & Seminary. In Model 4, the open enrollment, integrative community is represented by a place like George Fox (where Dr. Baker serves), Southwest Baptist University (where I serve), or Carson-Newman University outside of Knoxville, TN.

At a Model 3 school, the pursuit of truth occurs alongside others who profess the same (Christian) faith. The Christian faith permeates everything, shaping the curriculum and environment. In Model 4, the integrative community ensures that the Christian worldview is foundational to all they’re doing. Here, Christianity still shapes the curriculum and the environment, and there is often a statement of faith. Yet, unbelievers are welcome to apply and study at the institution. They do so knowing that staff and faculty are professing followers of Jesus, and there’s often a code of conduct that requires Christ-like behavior.

Arthur Holmes on Models of Integration of Faith and Learning

Having read Dr. Baker a couple of weeks ago, I was reminded of this discussion in an older work by Arthur Holmes (1924–2011), former professor of philosophy at Wheaton College in Illinois. In his book, The Idea of a Christian College, Dr. Holmes helps us think more specifically about how schools have sought to integrate faith and learning across the University. Just like some schools approah the enrollment question differently, and schools vary in how they engage with ethical or moral ideas, there is also a diverse approach to the question of integration.

1. The Attitudinal Approach—some institutions see the Christian faith as creating an attitude that is excited about discovering God’s truth in the world. That is, “the Christian faith rightly understood creates a positive attitude toward liberal learning because in God’s creation every area of life and learning is related to the wisdom and power of God. All truth is God’s truth” (47). Indeed, “the scholars’ love for truth becomes an expression of love for God…” (48).
2. The Ethical Approach—we live in a world where ethical issues confront us in every sphere. Whether at home or at work, we need to make sure we are living life in ways that are right instead of wrong. “The ethical approach to integration, in other words, must explore the intrinsic relationship between facts and the values of justice and love, a relationship that goes beyond the question of consequences” (51). This approach challenges learners to move beyond the facts (of any given subjecct) to the moral question of “oughtness” (what ought you do or not do). This “oughtness” is defined in relation to the Christian worldview.
3. The Foundational Approach—this approach seeks to supply historical, philosophical, and theological foundations to the academic life of a student. It helps the student understand the “history of ideas” and how, specifically, the Christian tradition (or Christian theology) lays the foundation for learning and impacts all other fields of study.
4. The Worldview Approach—for Holmes, this represents “the most embracing contact between Christianity and human learning…” (57). Here we find institutions looking at all things (e.g., sports, curricular decisions, student life events, job descriptions, rules, and policies) through a biblical worldview. The view of everything is “perspectival” (59). “We see [all] things from a Christian point of view” (59).

Note, again, that Holmes is considering the ways explicitly Christian schools have sought to weave the Christian faith into the life of the University (e.g., Student Life, academics, etc). As with most things, there isn’t a monolithic approach.

Is there a “right way”?

As one can see from the above descriptions, when an institution claims to be “Christian,” there’s various ways of understanding that descriptor. What type of Christian institution of higher learning are you talking about? What is that schools approach to the enrollment question? How does Christianity map onto the curriculum? What does Christianity look like outside the classroom? And what approach to integration does the administration embrace? Having these categories in mind will help us as we think about where to study, how to think about our faith and its place in learning, and what questions we might ask as we explore either employement or study at so-called Christian schools.

Here are a few short reflections:

1. When it comes to the question of open vs. closed enrollment, both have a place in Christian higher education. There are challenges and opportunities at each type of institution. Being aware of the challenges at your school of choice and how to embrace the opportunities before you are things you should take time to ponder. For example, at SBU (where I serve now), we are preparing students to live on mission even as we are aware that the mission field has come to us. We have an opportunity to introduce non-believing students to the gospel. And, we have the challenge of having a population onsite that doesn’t always understand why we live and learn the way we do.
2. Christian schools, regardless of being open or closed, should be confessional institutions. Without clear statements of faith, history has taught us that places tend to drift away from faithfulness. Christian schools should require both staff and faculty to affirm basic Christian beliefs.
3. Christian education is not merely Christianity as an add-on. For an education to be truly Christian, it should map onto the whole of the University. In the classroom, on the football field, and volleyball court, through chapels, Res Life Bible studies, Human Resource policies, and leadership development, Christianity runs through the veins of the school.
4. In terms of integration of faith and learning, the approaches listed by Holmes are interesting, even instructive in some ways. Schools should certainly see the Christian faith as (a) providing an exciting ground for studying God’s creation, (b) teaching us how to live in light of God’s designs, (c) and providing the foundations for all subject matter. Yet, it seems the worldview approach is the most robust way to tie our faith and learning together.
5. To state the point above differently, the Christian worldview should be the mental map (to borrow from Nancy Pearcy, Total Truth) of the administration, staff, and faculty. Everyone leading at the institution should see things through the lens of the Bible, as John Calvin might say. The Christian worldview colors how we teach economics, nursing, computer science, and history. It shapes how we discipline students and draft internal policies. Our Christianity is who we are all the time.

What are your thoughts on Christian higher education and the categories above? Anything you see me missing?