This conversation is a sample of what can ‘come to the table,’ particularly at college desire to clarify how it has moved on from it’s religious heritage, such as what George Marsden researches/writes about in “The Soul of the American University” (Oxford University Press, 1994). BTW, who would have remembered F&M’s connection to the Reformed Church, later part of the United Church of Christ, which was “severed” when “the College became a secular institution” but “remained committed to ‘liberal learning’” in 1969 (see http://www.fandm.edu/x20902, accessed 10/21/2009, 1:30 pm)? Note the Provost’s emphasis on putting the religious heritage behind in order to be secular and her concern regarding Agassiz’s rejection of evolution.

Too much in the post to copy here, but here’s a pertinent section regarding how followers of Christ perceive/experience the environment of a liberal arts college such as F&M. Note: At the time, Michael Murray was a Philosophy Professor at F&M (http://www.fandm.edu/x11310?id=204, accessed 10/21/2009, 1:36 pm) now he is the John Templeton Foundation’s Vice President for Philosophy and Theology (http://www.templeton.org/about_us/who_we_are/leadership_team/michael_murray/, accessed 10/21/2009, 1:36 pm).

“In the conversation afterward several Christian students shared their feelings of being marginalized on campus because of their faith. Michael [Murray] affirmed that he has seen this in the lives of a number of students and in his own as a follower of Christ during his 18 years at F&M. A number of students present emphasized their desire for more science-religion conversation. One student expressed concern regarding the erasure of [campus] memory — although a classmate disagreed. And one student even challenged the Provost as to whether concerns as to the allusion to faith and not Agassiz’s racism was at the core of the removal.

As to concerns which those in the future might bring to our current scientific work, the following were suggested: scientism’s rejection of broader conversation regarding the origin of life, money directing scientific research, arrogance of science/technology (we need a dose of humility), atheism’s role in guiding science (it was confessed that we all bring a bias, but scientists propose a hypothesis with the ability to falsify as one follows the evidence where it leads . . . unlike religion).”

Note: More response coming in the post on Chapter 3.

With that said, I’ve had a number of conversations with Christian faculty and graduate students who have certainly felt silenced. Whether they actually have been silenced by an authority figure – well, that’s a whole other matter. Frankly, I can’t imagine someone being dumb enough to say that they were rejecting a journal article or tenure application because of the person’s religious faith.

One of the top questions I hear from Christian faculty and graduate students is how “open” they should be about their faith before they earn tenure. Most of them express anxiety about their career if they cross some imaginary line between their faith and their scholarship. Self-censorship based on fear accomplishes the same goal – silence – with much less risk for the ones who wish Christians to remain silent. Considering how competitive the academic job environment is – and how hard it is to get back “on track” after your career has gone slightly “off track” – I don’t think much pressure at all is needed to encourage Christian scholars to keep their faith to themselves.

But I’m open to hearing different perspectives. The environment for Christians has clearly been getting better since Marsden wrote this book, so perhaps his concerns are outdated, and a bolder stance can be taken by Christian faculty and students.

Is “scholarship” a book, grant application, fellowship letter of inquiry, syllabus, journal article, or what? What he’s talking about makes sense, I guess, but I’m trying to imagine a conflict as it would occur in practice.

If he would just give an example of a book or class or scholar who was actually “silenced”, then I would take his argument seriously. Not some book critiquing religion, but someone who had their journal article rejected because of it was “Christian”.