Secular Higher-Level Education and Christian Students

It is the common narrative with which Christian students are constantly warned: students lose their faith when they go to college. They must be careful or they will be swayed by the atheistic, humanistic presentations of reality and will no longer have room amid their “intellectual enlightenment” for spirituality. It is frightening to think about Christian students simply deciding not to be Christians anymore, neglecting Christ and the all-encompassing perfection of God on a whim. The association of secular education with this fear is not unwarranted. However, it is also true that this discussion is complex, and the temptation to oversimplify it often leads to the potentially unsupported conclusion that secular education can only be a threat.

The issue of shalom is also relevant in this discussion. While highlighting the obligations Christian higher-level institutions have to the Kingdom of God, Cornelius Plantinga defines shalom as “universal flourishing, wholeness, and delight – a rich state of affairs that inspires joyful wonder as its creator and Savior opens doors and welcomes the creatures in whom he delights” (Plantinga 1). It is important to think about the positive and negative effects of any type of education on the ability of Christian students to develop this delight in the Kingdom of God. The aforementioned, oversimplified conclusion regarding secular education might suggest that its promotion of humanism and a world void of Providence will inevitably inhibit the ability of a Christian student to flourish in the wholeness intended by a sovereign Creator. In the same way, a curriculum centered around God’s design might characterize a faith-based education as a force only capable of advancing shalom. However, despite common trends, do the affiliations of higher-level institutions have the authority to determine the fate of faith? Herein lies the complexity of this discussion.

Although there exist negative social and spiritual effects of secular higher-level education on Christian students, secular education is not an inevitable threat to the faith of Christian students, and shalom can still be advanced by Christian students in secular settings. 

It can be argued that secular education has the potential to negatively affect the social well-being of Christian students. For example, a study completed in 2008 by Lauri and Conrad Hyers found that their sample of conservative Christian students from a specific secular university experienced discriminatory events in a similar frequency to that experienced by other groups (Hyers et al 2006, as referenced by Hyers and Hyers 123) whose discrimination patterns are more often studied (Hyers and Hyers 123). Seventy-four percent of these discriminatory events towards the conservative Christian sample fell under a larger category of Derogation, “…characterized by overt negative judgments and ridicule of Christians” (Hyers and Hyers 120). The second part of this study aimed to investigate how students at other secular universities sympathized with discrimination directed at Christian students, specifically that recorded by the conservative Christian sample from the first study (Hyers and Hyers 126). It was found that the tested “…sample of university students was moderately sympathetic to everyday incidents of Anti-Christian discrimination perpetrated against other college students” and that lower levels of sympathy were displayed for discrimination against Christians than for discrimination against other groups targeted by Anti-black racism or sexism (Hyers and Hyers 129). Also, the most common discrimination experienced by conservative Christian students in the first study, derogation, was determined by participants in the second study to receive only moderate sympathy, leading to the potential claim that everyday discrimination against Christian students in secular settings has become admissible (Hyers and Hyers 130). 

Although the results of this study are arguably not generalizable beyond the conservative Christian student population and the populations of the secular universities involved, it gives insight into the harmful social aspects of a secular environment. Secular institutions have the potential to be a place where Christian students are targeted because of their faith, be it implicitly or explicitly. In addition, the discrimination they experience may not be perceived by the larger population as overtly offensive, therefore possibly creating a depressing and lonely environment for Christian students. 

It can also be argued that secular education has the potential to negatively affect the spiritual commitment of Christian students, although this conversation is complex and can be challenged by empirical evidence. A study by Gary Railsback aimed to investigate the change in a religious commitment based on an evangelical “born-again” status among students at seven types of higher-level institutions (Public Universities, private universities, 4-year public colleges, Protestant institutions, Catholic institutions, nonsectarian schools, and historically black colleges) in comparison to schools belonging to the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU) (Railsback 39, 46). This study was also a 1997/2001 replication of a previous study conducted by Railsback on the “born-again” commitment of college students in 1985/1989 (Railsback 43). Although the data from both versions were not identical, the data from both the 1985/1989 and 1997/2001 versions revealed a similar trend. Student participants who originally labeled themselves as “born-again” Christians in the freshman survey were more likely to maintain this status as a senior if they completed their education at a CCCU school as opposed to any of the other seven types of institutions involved in the study (Railsback 55). Although this implies that the secular institutions involved in this study (public universities, private universities, and 4-year public colleges to name a few) experienced higher “born-again” drop-out rates than the CCCU schools in both versions of the study, the conclusion that secular education is inherently detrimental to Christian faith is not necessarily supported by this study. For example, the drop-out rates for the Catholic and Protestant institutions involved were significant in both versions of the study at 51% and 23% respectively for the 1985/1989 survey and 59% and 31% respectively for the 1997/2001 survey (Railsback 50). In comparison, 4-year public colleges experienced a drop-out rate of 24% in the 1985/1989 study and 38% in the 1997/2001 study (Railsback 50). Therefore, the claim that secular education is the most faith-destroying form of education and that faith-based education, in general, can only be positive for Christian students is challenged; we see that some faith-based institutions experience an even larger loss in student “born-again” commitment than other secular institutions. That being said, the more informed conclusion drawn from this study involving the negatives of secular education is that, in comparison to the effective Christ-centered missions of CCCU schools, the secular institution is not an ideal setting for the guaranteed development or protection of Christian students’ faith (Railsback 56-57). Nonetheless, this does demonstrate that secular higher-level education can result in negative effects on the spiritual commitment of Christian students. 

Secular education does not always result in negative social and spiritual effects on Christian students, and in fact, it may have some positive effects on general religiosity. This is seen once again in the results of the aforementioned study by Railsback. In addition to recording their “born-again” status as freshmen and seniors, student participants were asked whether their religious beliefs had been strengthened, weakened, or unchanged throughout their college experience (Railsback 51). Although students at secular universities did not experience the same level of religious strengthening as students at CCCU schools, the number of students that claimed their faith to be weaker after college was only 12% across all the institutions studied (Railsback 53). Of this, the number of students reporting weaker beliefs to some extent at secular institutions such as the private universities (13% reported weaker beliefs to some degree) and the 4-year public colleges (8% reported weaker beliefs to some degree) (Railsback 53) is rather underwhelming. These results once again go to show that secular higher-level education does not always negatively affect the faith of Christian students. 

In terms of education’s positive effects on general religiosity, a study by Philip Shwadel analyzes multiple hypotheses investigating the effects of education on religion and religious practices in America. The data and results of this study are extremely complex, but some general findings suggest that education of a more secular nature has the potential to positively affect some aspects of the faith of Christian students. For example, it was found that education has a medium positive effect on the practices of prayer and Biblical reading as well as “…emphasizing the importance of religion and incorporating religion into daily life”  (Schwadel 174). It was also found that education shares a positive association with general participation in religious services and volunteering (Schwadel 175). These findings are very interesting, as they suggest that secular education is not necessarily detrimental to the spiritual discipline of Christian students.

It might be interpreted that an increase in education could lead to an overall increase in spiritual discipline, making Christian students more likely to live out their faith in a secular setting.

However, this study does reveal some data that challenges the previously-made claim that secular education positively affects the spiritual well-being of Christian students. For example, two of the conclusions of this study are that “…education has a strong negative effect on both viewing the Bible as the literal word of God and on saying there is truth in only one religion” (Schwadel 173). This is problematic as these two professions are fundamental to the Christian faith. We believe that the authority of scripture must be maintained and that anything outside of the Word of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ is untruth. Therefore, because of its negative effect on these declarations, this study reveals there is the potential for the authentic faith of Christian students to be placed in jeopardy by education associated with the “… recognition of disparate perspectives and the diversity of social networks” (Schwadel 164). Also, although education does not negatively affect a general belief in God or life after death, it does have a generalizing effect on a concrete understanding of God, causing him to be viewed as simply a “higher power” (Schwadel 173-174). This finding presents potential danger for Christian students as well; as their education increases, there is a risk that the sovereign, holy God of the Bible might become something lesser in their minds. In brief, although education can positively affect religious practices, there is the potential for education to also threaten fundamental Christian beliefs. The complexity of this discussion on secular education and Christian students has only been increased because positives and negatives not only both exist, but that they seem to hold similar levels of significance in the larger discussion. How can we view the pros and cons in light of each other to draw a better conclusion? 

Despite the assertion that Christ-centered higher-level education is more effective at nurturing the faith of Christian students, Christian students at a secular institution have the opportunity to grow their faith and advance shalom. Many Christian colleges aim to create an environment in which the faith of their students is strengthened through Christ-centered learning and community, and this concept can be very reassuring to Christian students and their families. In a previously mentioned study by Railsback involving the “born-again” statuses of students at eight different types of universities, it was found that eighty-two percent of participating students attending a CCCU institution reported having stronger religious beliefs after four years of higher-level learning to some degree in the 1997/2001 version of the study (Railsback 51-52). This was the highest number of students who reported strengthened beliefs across the various institution types studied, suggesting that schools promoting a Christ-centered mission (Railsback 46) are more effective in developing the faith of students. This argument is also promoted on the individual level. In an interview by Timothy C. Morgan about the challenges facing Evangelical institutions with Christian college presidents Philip Ryken and Michael Lindsay, Morgan asks if Christian education is meant for everyone. Both Ryken and Lindsay emphasize that Christian students should sincerely consider a Christian education because of all it has to offer in terms of growing faith and protecting from a Godless world (Ryken and Lindsay, as quoted by Morgan 25). However, before coming to this conclusion, Ryken admits that “…if you look in the Scriptures, you see some notable leaders of the people of God who had part of their formative experiences in very secular environments” (Ryken, as quoted by Morgan 25). Although this only represents the perspective of a single individual on an interview question, it does emphasize that not every Christian student will be called to pursue a higher-level education in a strictly Christian environment.

It also implies the larger commitment of Christian students to the Great Commission: the calling of all Christ-followers to go and make disciples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit according to Matthew 28:16-20, and ultimately advancing shalom, the peace of God’s perfection.

Is there hope for a Christian student to maintain their faith and advance shalom when they are called to or find themselves in a secular setting? 

A study by  Phil Davignon and Robert A. Thomson Jr. aimed to determine how some characteristics of Evangelical institutions, specifically a sample belonging to the CCCU, affect their ability to be run as moral communities and maintain student religiosity (Davignon and Thomson 531). In this study, moral communities “[suggest] that religion is a group property whose effect on individual behavior can be predicted by the proportion of the community that is actively religious” (Stark, 1996, as referenced by Davignon and Thomson 532). The different characteristics studied at each institution included religious homogeneity of the institutions in the study sample, their accessibility to spiritual mentors, as well as their intersection of faith and academics (Davignon and Thomson 531, 537, 539). The findings of this study are once again complex, but they also allow for broader generalizations that help address this question. They reveal that simply labeling a group as “Evangelical” or “Christian” does not ensure the homogeneity and the maintenance of a moral community in a group. Instead, it is “…shared beliefs and experiences seem to play a larger role in creating the type of homogeneity that sustains a moral community (Davignon and Thomson 546).  What’s more, the findings of this study suggest that both religious homogeneity and pluralism have positive effects on sustaining a group’s religiosity. Homogeneity might protect the common beliefs between the members in a small group, but it might ultimately be the pressure of outside pluralism that pushes the members of a smaller homogenous group to reassure beliefs and promote action (Davignon and Thomson 547). These findings are extremely hopeful when considering Christians at secular colleges and universities. A small group of like-minded Christian students might still form in a larger pluralistic and secular setting. The beliefs of these Christian students can be potentially protected by their like-minded support of each other, but, at the same time, put into action under the pressure of contradicting beliefs displayed by other students and their institution. In this way, Christian students at secular institutions can be challenged to embrace the Great Commission, make disciples, and advance a delight in the Kingdom of Heaven through shalom. 

This argument is also supported on a more individual level. An article from Time Magazine was written about the secular institution Indiana University and the experiences of its Christian student community. Readers learn that there are multiple opportunities for Christian students to get involved in faith-based organizations on Indianas’ campus, and there is even a set-apart living community called Christian Student Fellowship available for students seeking a lifestyle separate from the secular atmosphere (Chu). This goes to show that Christian students can gather and form maintainable communities within a pluralized setting. When Christians are actively involved in these groups, it becomes less likely that the secular culture will seriously threaten their faith commitment. However, while some students are thoroughly grateful for the opportunity to be a part of this community, others find they are still feeling stuck in the Christian bubble (Chu). In addition, it has been observed that many of these organizations “…tend to go about their business quietly” (Chu). 

In this analysis, it has been revealed that secular education can be negatively associated with the faith commitment and social wellbeing of Christian students. However, it has also been revealed that secular education can have a positive effect on Christian religiosity, specifically in promoting Christian practices and spiritual discipline. Therefore, despite the risk of secular education, Christians can attend a secular institution and flourish in their faith. Christian students can embrace their calling to be in the world and not of it when they are constantly fighting against contradicting beliefs to promote and represent Jesus Christ. Shalom can be advanced by Christian students in a secular setting. As originally argued, the complexity of the issue of secular education and its effects on Christian students cannot be undermined or oversimplified. However, there comes a point where students must decide if the Truth of Jesus Christ is worth everything to them. Brandon Straub, a student on Indiana’s campus made his choice when he turned from his life of college partying to follow Jesus and minister to the other students in his fraternity (Chu). He has committed to battling temptation and remaining set apart so that he might glorify God and advance shalom in a secular institution setting. In Time magazine, he said, “If I’m saying to God, ‘You’re my man,’ then I have to aspire to be a warrior for him” (Straub, as quoted by Chu). Straub exemplifies the potential Christian students have at secular institutions to advance shalom when they choose to remain faithful. 

Even more detrimental to the Christian faith than secular and humanistic attack, even more deadly than adopting a lifestyle of sin and indulgence, is the illusion that Christian truth is not worth our very lives; the illusion that it does not demand to be shared.

To deny that we must proclaim the truth of Jesus Christ and to deny that we exist for the sole purpose of glorifying God is to deny the nature of the missional Gospel

Christian students cannot be okay with “going about their business quietly” because the business of God is the only thing capable of bringing salvation into a broken world. The identity and power of Jesus Christ within Christian students will ultimately transcend the affiliation of any university when they choose Him first.