Steven Lemley
Associate Professor of Communication
I was asked by a student reporter to offer a brief comment “on the importance (or lack thereof) of Pepperdine’s staffing its faculty with members of the Church of Christ.” I gave a brief answer but it is a far more complex matter than my answer to him suggested. It is a difficult and delicate issue to discuss and its very complexities are close to the heart of how it is that we are, and remain, a Christian university.
Since its founding, Pepperdine has always been a more religiously diverse institution than most similar colleges.
Pepperdine is not like some of the leading Christian universities such as Calvin College and Wheaton or Westmont and Azusa Pacific, in that it is not founded on a particular statement of faith—the term “confessional” describes institutions that have a particular and detailed faith statement. These schools are not so much controlled by a denomination but, rather, by a statement of faith that would be fairly lengthy and that would require a detailed agreement from an incoming faculty member. Our lack of such a statement is not likely to change because of the religious diversity that is already built into our university at all levels and, to a lesser degree, because of the historic resistance to legislated faith statements among the Churches of Christ.
Pepperdine is not controlled by a church body—there is not a denominational convention or headquarters within the Church of Christ so there is no denominational body to which the university can answer. Churches of Christ are autonomous—that means that each congregation is independent of all the others and associated only by mutual, often unspoken, agreement. No single congregation of the Church of Christ controls the university, nor is there a formal denominational legislative entity to control us and maintain our institutional Christian commitment.
Some Christian colleges are effectively owned by denominations. It goes without saying that we are not. But it surprises some to learn that the Church of Christ, by and large, does not support its related colleges and universities financially. There are members of the Church of Christ who do, of course, but no financial support comes from a church body.
So, then, the question is how is it that we are a Christian university at all?
We might look to the university charter and its by-laws which are the fundamental legal documents authorizing the operation of the university. But anyone who has read those Pepperdine documents is struck by the interesting fact that they do not define Pepperdine as a Christian university. And the only way in which they tie us to the Church of Christ is in their requirement that, first, the president of the university must be a member of the Church of Christ and that, second, the Board of Regents must have a slight majority of people who are members of the Church of Christ and that, third, there will be a committee, known as the “religious standards committee” of the Board of Regents composed wholly of members of the Church of Christ. That committee is responsible for the spiritual direction of the University. Further, the charter and by-laws of the university do not require any of these people to subscribe to any particular statement of faith, doctrine, or conduct but, rather, they are required to have a particular church relationship.
Perhaps Pepperdine is a Christian university because its mission statement says so. The mission statement and university affirmation have some direct language about this. The mission statement begins, “Pepperdine is a Christian university . . . .” and the affirmation which follows begins, “As a Christian university . . . .” But that language identifying Pepperdine as a Christian university was only agreed upon around ten years ago. At that point, we ended a decades-long ambiguity when those statements came into the literature which describes us to our public.
The mission and affirmation are important statements, and I believe they are true, but they are not from the legal (charter or bylaws) description of the university. They are important but their permanence and meaning are subject to change through time. Those statements were negotiated into existence through a process that allowed broad review by the university community, and they can be negotiated out of existence, too.
All that considered, two things seem true:
First, the only connection the university has to the Church of Christ is through its people who are members of that church—there exits no other fundamental, unambiguous, or more permanent way of relating the university to the Church of Christ than the presence of a majority of members of the Church of Christ on the Board of Regents and a president who is a member of that church, as well. Notice that it’s not even about the vitality of faith, or subscribing to a formal doctrinal statement, or subscribing to a prescribed a code of conduct. It is simply about their church relationship.
Second, the connection with that particular church is also Pepperdine’s deepest and most permanent foundation for existing as a Christian university of any description at all since we are not founded on a creedal confession of faith with which all board, leaders, staff and faculty must agree and we do not answer to any governing church body. It is the only existing “constitutional” language that would perpetuate Pepperdine as an institution related to Christian faith, Because of the complexity of our university as it is now—and has always been—we are not likely to ever arrive at any meaningful confessional agreement. And answering to the governing council of a church is out of the question.
Without that, Pepperdine would be left with two possible influences—both of which are necessary to its being a Christian university but neither one of them, not even both of them together, is sufficient.
First is the university’s heritage. Our heritage is dynamic, fascinating, wonderful, and formative but it has a conflicted 70-year history. It is full of ambiguities regarding the place of faith and the university’s relationship to the Church of Christ. It is, and has always been, particularly subject to interpretation. The question becomes which decade of Pepperdine’s heritage could one draw upon to explain the university’s Christian commitment.
Second is the goodwill and determination of all university constituents—alumni, students, staff, administration, faculty, and governing board—to maintain the university’s commitment to core Christian faith. That commitment is strong now. But maintaining the commitment will be a challenge over the long term because this university competes with institutions whose documentary and constituent support might even exclude a Christian commitment. We want to be Christian and we want to be as highly regarded, academically, as any university in the world. One of those could trump the other, but we want to be both. I believe that our history suggests that it will always be an unstable balance. To maintain that balance will likely entail some ongoing tension. Given the way in which academic standing is built, the more difficult part of the balance to maintain—institutionally—is the Christian commitment of the university. If goodwill and determination (necessary though they are) are all that we have, I see little precedent in the history of higher education, in the realities of organizational dynamics, or in our own history to suggest that we can remain a Christian university over the long term.
There is a third element here, probably the most important, in our present institutional commitment to Christian faith. I would call it “providential.” Some might say, “miraculous.” From a worldly point of view, the apparent forces that would have pulled us away from Christian commitment have been stronger than the visible forces that have brought us to this point. As a Christian believer whose life has been spent in Christian higher education and who has been a close observer of the course of higher education in the 20th and 21st centuries, I see the providence of God at work in the contribution Pepperdine University is making.
Well, then, how does all of that relate to the question of whether it is important to have significant numbers of tenured and tenure-track faculty who are members of the Church of Christ?
First, it’s not about the kind of Christian university we are and will be. Our uniqueness in this regard is probably overstated, but we are different in important ways from any other college or university of my acquaintance, publicly supported, religiously affiliated, or independently secular. And we are different from other colleges and universities related to the Church of Christ. There are in excess of ten of those in the continental United States, some near us in size and some who could make a case for being very near us in academic quality, if not in reputation. I have attended, taught in, led, and serve on the board of one of those schools, value it highly, and know the others well. I have also attended, taught in, and helped lead Pepperdine. Believe me when I say that we are different. I am enthusiastic about both models of Christian higher education and believe that schools related to the Churches of Christ need not all be alike. Pepperdine’s version of Christian higher education, as well as our location in a part of the world that leads culture and thought, is especially well-positioned to bring together Christian faith and the world as it is.
Second, I think Pepperdine’s special culture and spirit of community—and the Christian context in which they exist—flow from our religious diversity. Our version of “faith and learning,” as an application of faith to the life of the mind, does not arise from any particular perspective that is unique to the Church of Christ. It is deeply enriched by what evangelical, reformed, and liturgical traditions have done, and are doing, in their highly effective institutions. In part because we have faculty who are also from those traditions, academic inquiry here is more rooted in Christian faith. Pepperdine’s approach to faith and learning is sustained by its religious diversity.
Third, this university is not so much a table hosted by members of the Church of Christ to which others are welcomed as it is an academic community that is shaped by the interaction of all who are present in it. Though there is a protected level of Christian expression here, and a protected church relationship, there is also a level of diverse opinion and worldview. Does that diversity generate some tension? Is there sometimes a feeling that the Christian position, or a particular variation of a Christian position, is not sufficiently dominant? Or that it is too dominant? Probably. But I dare affirm it as a healthy thing, creating dialog, which is constituting a well-considered faith that that is making a difference in this world.
Fourth, it’s not only about a church relationship. There has been an increasing focus on finding evidence in a prospective faculty member of a vital faith that is likely to result in some visible contribution to a Christian worldview, a life worth consideration by students who are watching, and integration of faith and learning within their disciplines. It is widely understood by faculty search-and-review committees, and by administrators who make the final decisions, that this is a baseline for faculty appointments. Even where membership in the Church of Christ is a factor in those decisions, it is understood that church membership and vital faith may be two different things. That sometimes results in decisions to not appoint some applicants who are members of the Church of Christ. And that is as it should be.
Last, but not least, are the human concerns. We would hope and expect that a person appointed to a faculty position would grow and change between the time they are freshly minted Ph.D.s and the time they reach retirement age. Sometimes people experience tectonic shifts in their thinking. Hearts may grow cold. Or they may become passionate about perspectives they did not hold when they were first appointed. Institutions are organized around strong purposes, some negotiable, some not. Human beings are more fluid than institutions. The interests of individuals and long-range institutional interests can come into conflict. When that happens, there is tension and, sometimes, real pain. That is important and, when it happens, must be addressed as the dilemma that it presents—wisely, compassionately, carefully, respectfully.
This is an argument for understanding that the most stable and permanent thing that establishes and maintains our university as Christian is its church relationship. It is also an argument that the way in which appointments of administration, staff, and faculty are made will be a most important factor in strengthening and holding the university’s relationship to the Churches of Christ. Strengthening the church relationship helps ensure, over the long term, the university’s broadly Christian purposes which are given visible and experienced form by the contributions of people here who are committed to diverse faith traditions.
But, the nature of academic governance is heavily influenced by the will of faculty, staff, and administration who make decisions and recommendations regarding university policy and the appointment of other faculty, staff, and administration. Those who govern and lead at the very “top” of the institution, including governing boards, are influenced over time by the judgment of those at other levels of the institution. The course of Christian higher education over the last 250 is persuasive that it is very difficult for institutional mission and purpose, particularly if faith is central to it, to survive the legitimate processes of academic governance because there are so many other important purposes to fulfill in such things as faculty hiring. In the normal course of academic governance, legitimate purposes like academic qualifications and fit for a particular position are more difficult to compromise than a prospect’s church membership or, even, one’s more general commitment to faith and learning.
It seems reasonable that the way in which appointments of administration, staff, and faculty are made will be a most important factor in strengthening and holding the university’s relationship to the Churches of Christ. It is consistent with the way in which the university is “officially” Christian—through its people who are related to the Churches of Christ. It follows, it seems to me, that what strengthens the particular church relationship also helps ensure over the long term, the university’s broadly Christian purposes which are given form and function by the contributions of people who are committed to diverse faith traditions.
It is paradoxical—keeping the University’s broadly-Christian position vital and advancing seems to ultimately depend on keeping its particular church relationship vital and meaningful, as well.
There are actually two additional paradoxical phenomena in all of this. The first, to the continued surprise of long-time Pepperdine observers, is that as the university’s commitment to faith has become more open, its recognition in the academic world has risen. In an increasingly secular society where academic pursuits sometimes seem to openly discount faith, this is remarkable. The second is that as the university’s commitment to its church relationship—in not only word but in deed—has grown, so has its confidence in appointing faculty from a variety of traditions who have brought faith perspectives that have enlivened the overall discourse on faith and learning across the University.
This essay is about three vital expressions of the character of Pepperdine University: academic excellence, diversity in the faith expressions of the university’s people, the university’s relationship with the Church of Christ. Choose any two of those and some very important and defining things about Pepperdine’s character will be lost. Choose all three, manage the dilemmas they present over the long term, and the special nature of this university will be in place for a long time.
That’s why I think appointing significant numbers of tenure-track professors from the Churches of Christ is important.
09-28-2006