Click to hide HTML preview
A brief defense of a confessional stance in a secular school
A Brief Defense of a Confessional Stance in a Secular School
The IV basis of faith is brief statement of historic Christian belief, and whatever its flaws, should
be seen in the same family as the great creeds: that is, as a statement of the principle teachings of
the faith, the "gospel handed down," and accepted as such by Christians of many times, places,
and denominations.
Is it appropriate for a student group to have a statement of this kind at a secular school, whatever
its content? We could characterize this kind of statement as "confessional," a statement of faith.
The chief opposing stance we could characterize as "skeptical," one which questions all starting
points, faiths, dogmas. The skeptical stance is a methodological one, tracing its roots, in part, to
Descartes, who sought to question everything until he came to that which could not be doubted.
Moreover, it is a methodology which elevates epistemology, the study of knowing, to a position
of primacy. The modern university world has embraced this skeptical stance. It is considered to
be an "open-minded" stance, one which delivers us from superstition, makes shared, testable
knowledge possible, and holds the greatest promise for free inquiry and advancement of
knowledge. No where can the supposed justification of this stance be seen more than in the
spectacular success of the empirical sciences. Indeed, even non-empirical intellectual endeavors
often adopt the term "science" to be academically respectable.
In this light, it is easy to see why a confessional statement like InterVarsity's can seem like an
irrelevant relic of the past at best, or an active enemy of the quest for knowledge at worst. Only
the relatively new philosophies of post-modernism have much sympathy for this sort of
statement. Radical relativists and many multiculturalists would have us splinter off into many
intellectually isolated and mutually incomprehensible tribes who share nothing but patronizing
sensitivity and groundless tolerance. Those who hope for a common knowledge, Modernists and
Christians alike, can at least join in rejecting this. This brief defense of the legitimacy of a
confessional stance contains historical, philosophical, practical, and moral arguments.
The current rule of the skeptical stance in the university is no indication of an historical
hegemony. The medieval university was confessional, even explicitly Christian. Theology
reigned as the queen of the sciences. It seems uncharitable for the child to claim that the practice
of the parent bore no fruit. Similarly, many of the major educational institutions of this country
began, and many are, confessional. Again it seems wrongheaded to say that such a stance always
compromises intellectual integrity.
Indeed, many have argued that the skeptical stance contains the philosophical seeds of its own
dissolution. It may attack its own foundation. Just as the key components of the empirical
sciences (e.g. the contingency of nature, the inductive method) cannot be proved empirically, so
too the pursuit of truth is based upon certain elements of faith or assumptions. The question may
not be "confessional or skeptical?" but "which confession?" In elevating epistemology, the
skeptical stance has dislodged ontology (or metaphysics), the study of being, from the position of
primacy. While it is beyond the scope of this brief defense, it is arguable that metaphysical
considerations (what is) are logically prior to epistemological considerations (how it is known).
The concept of God has a long and honorable position of a possible ontological starting point.
Insofar as a confessional stance takes this position, it has had a legitimate place in the university.
As a matter of practicality, a Christian group that ceases to hold to some confession among its
leadership ceases to be a group with any but the lowest common denominator as its distinctive.
A distinctly Christian group has as its goal the practice of the Lordship of Christ: we seek to be
disciples or followers of Jesus Christ in all areas, including the discipleship of the mind, and to
see everything come under the grace-filled rule of Christ. A distinctly Christian group has a
message: the gospel of Christ. The central problem of humanity is neither intellectual, nor social,
nor psychological, but moral. The moral rebellion against God which infects all other areas of
life, thought, and culture finds its reversal in the revelation and work of Christ. Christians expect
that this goal and message will be questioned, rejected, and even opposed by some. However, to
simply dismiss what is distinctly Christian or attempt to recast it as merely "a place for people
with religious emotions" or "a collection of fundamentalist kids who comfort one another" is
unconscionably reductionistic and condescending. It is the opinion of many in InterVarsity that it
is in the secular university's best interest, by its own standards, to enrich itself by allowing
Christians their own distinctives.
Finally, a confessional stance is a matter of moral and intellectual integrity for Christians. God
is. He has spoken. To play the skeptic is a betrayal of the provision of God. Questioning
fundamental truths for the purpose of clarity and deeper understanding is one thing, doubting
truth is another. Welcoming, dialoguing with, and respecting doubters is one thing, fostering
doubt is another. For Christians, to live life in an unbelieving context (which is where most
Christians live most of the time), is to live the life of an apologist. An apologist defends the faith
with thoughtful words, by living a godly life, and by participating in a spiritual community.
Those truths of faith that can understood, confirmed, or demonstrated by reason are defended by
reason. Those truths of faith which cannot be known by reason (revealed truth), can still be
defended as reasonable. Such integrity is surely not incompatible with the aims of the university.
Tim Webster, InterVarsity Staff, 5/12/97. [Emailed to woody and Nathan 5/13/97 sub: basis of
faith; 5/12/97 sub: philosophy. I can't find their responses (Woody's was detailed) May 26,
1998.]
Click to see HTML preview
