Evangelicalism and Christian Education

Given the outstanding presentations on evangelicalism that we have had thus far, I do not need to spend much time defining what an evangelical is. But to summarize, I like the definition that David Dockery gave as a chapel address at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary on January 14, 2015, as revised and published in Trinity Journal: “Evangelicals are men and women who love Jesus Christ, love the Bible, and love the gospel message. They are gospel people. A hallmark of the movement is a willingness to cooperate together in evangelism, missions, and educational efforts.” Dockery goes on to say that evangelicalism, a cross-denominational movement emphasizing classical Protestant theology, is best understood today as culturally engaged and historically shaped in response to both mainline liberalism and reactionary fundamentalism.¹

Dockery continues by saying a lot more to fill out this definition historically, but I especially note—and enjoy—his use of the old saw about Billy Graham and evangelicalism: If you love Billy Graham, you are an evangelical. If you are a liberal, you think Billy Graham is a fundamentalist. If you are a fundamentalist, you think Billy Graham is apostate. I will give you one more quote from Dockery’s speech that I really like. It says a lot historically in just a few words: “While we can connect the evangelical movement with the teaching of the apostles, with the early church consensus, as it developed through the great church councils, and the Reformation of the sixteenth century, evangelicalism is perhaps best traced to the revivals of the eighteenth century.”²

Dockery, along with historians like Thomas Kidd, agrees that following the Reformation of the sixteenth century and the Puritan and Pietist influences of the seventeenth century, evangelicalism as a movement is connected formally to the revivals of the eighteenth century and especially to significant figures like George Whitefield, John and Charles Wesley, and Jonathan Edwards.³ Under the widespread influence of these preachers and theologians, evangelicalism became known doctrinally and experientially for its emphases upon the preaching of the gospel, the new birth and conversion, the felt presence of the Holy Spirit, and what David Bebbington calls an activist faith. And, in good Reformation tradition, these well-known features were grounded with exegetical and expository arguments on the authority of the Bible as the final word for theology, faith, and spiritual experience.

My central topic, however, is not “What is evangelicalism?” Rather, I have been challenged to speak on evangelicalism and Christian education, an experience and practice that is at the heart of not only the International Alliance for Christian Education (IACE) but every person and institution it represents.

I begin with one very obvious fact: Christian education in general—whether in a church, a school, a special purpose group, an agency, or a parachurch ministry—cannot be separated from the proclamation of the gospel, the evangelion, which is central to the evangelical movement and of course the very basis of our name, “evangelical.” The preaching of the gospel is not the only tenet of evangelicalism, but it is a foundational point, and I bring it to the fore here because it connects almost by definition with the work of our institutions. In other words, we should remember that the gospel itself is an announced message, a venture in education.

The gospel is a good news message designed for telling. It is a revelation intended to communicate what a messenger knows to an audience that does not yet know. It is not advice. In Scripture, it is a proclamation of the dawning of a new day not heretofore experienced, though long awaited. The gospel involves a herald. The message? That the prophesied day of restoration has come.

“Get yourself up on a high mountain, O Zion, bearer of good news.
Lift up your voice mightily, Jerusalem, bearer of good news.
Lift it up, do not fear
Say to the cities of Judah, behold your God!” (Isaiah 40:9).

“How lovely on the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news; who announces peace, and brings good news of happiness; who announces salvation; and says to Zion, your God reigns!” (Isaiah 52:7).

It is what major characters at the beginning of the Gospel of Luke celebrate. Mary exalts the Lord because “he has given help to Israel, his servant, in remembrance of his mercy, as he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and his offspring forever” (1:54–55). Zacharias, the father of John, “was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied, saying: ‘Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has visited us and accomplished redemption for his people, and raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of David, his servant—as he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from old’” (1:67–70).

Or consider Simeon, the man in Jerusalem who was waiting for the “consolation of Israel,” having been divinely promised that he would not die until he saw Messiah. When Mary, Joseph, and the baby entered the temple, the Holy Spirit was upon him. And when he saw the child, “he took him into his arms, and blessed God, and said, ‘Now, Lord, let thy bondservant depart in peace, for my eyes have seen your salvation, which you have prepared in the presence of all peoples’” (2:25–31). Or the 84-year-old widow by the name of Anna, from the tribe of Asher, who at the same moment saw what Simeon saw and “began giving thanks to God and spoke of the baby to all those who,” as she, “were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem” (2:36–38).

The gospel is a long hoped for message of good tidings that has a significant backstory and many implications, and for all those new hearers who embraced with joy the glorious news of the divinely incarnate, crucified, risen, and enthroned Messiah, it needed to be unpacked. And so it was. The very existence of the New Testament is a testimony to the earliest records of the apostolic and authoritative efforts to interpret, elaborate, spread, and preserve the exciting new spoken message and the implications of it.

The earliest assemblies of Jesus’s followers heard the message over and over, and when, after not too many years, they had documents, they preserved them and listened to them read aloud regularly in their assemblies and carefully made copies for other assemblies as well. Within a historically short period of time, these interpretive documents came to be used in worship alongside the Tanak—what we call the Old Testament—as theapostolic witness and teaching basis of the fulfillment of the ancient scriptural
longings for restoration, the kingdom of God that had now dawned in the person of Jesus and was confirmed by the presence of the Spirit.

Preaching and teaching the gospel were largely the same thing in content, though of course the context of the audience influenced the style and level of the teaching. From the very first day, the followers of Jesus had authoritative teachers, the apostles and their wider circle of disciples, who elaborated orally the background of the gospel message, its scriptural justification and basis in the teachings and story of Jesus. And then as the oral traditions were displaced by written documents, various bodies of recognized teachers emerged to explain them—secretaries, readers, and communicators. As Timothy was instructed to be, they were zealous to guard the gospel (1 Tim. 6:20).

So, it only makes sense that, over time, the good news teachings would become inextricably linked with and even give rise to educational institutions of all kinds, whether for ministers or laypersons.

There were, of course, famous institutions established by Christian influences in Paris, Bologna, Oxford, Cambridge, and around the world. And then following the great revivals of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, it was natural for other institutions to emerge that would reflect the theological character and the spiritual experience of those great evangelical movements—that is, the centrality of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, the new birth and conversion, and the experience of the Spirit—core theological beliefs that were all grounded in biblical authority.

This view of what constitutes a Christian institution is consistent with what Richard John Neuhaus says in his Eleven Theses “on the possibility of a Christian university.”⁴ That is, he insists that a Christian university is grounded in its theological convictions, especially as those core governing beliefs orbit around the lordship of Jesus Christ. Thus, Neuhaus argues, rightly I think, that the Christian character of an institution is not properly described by its history, its denominational affiliation, its board of trustees, or even being like other universities in degree programs and curriculum, but with chapel or a few Bible courses. Nor, I would add, by having an atmosphere that is “nice.”

For Neuhaus, and I think every evangelical can agree, Christian higher education is grounded first of all in its core theological convictions. Neuhaus and others have reminded us that it does help to have an ecclesiastical tradition that can hold a Christian institution accountable, but an ecclesiastical tradition is not in the end what constitutes a Christian university. All of us have seen that an ecclesiastical tradition, if it loses its moorings, is unlikely to hold Christian institutions accountable.

The challenge I want to address is, how do we advance our educational institutions, enable them to flourish, and indeed, at a very basic level, preserve them as faithful evangelical entities? The last more than hundred years have seen a serious decline in the character and even existence of historically Christian institutions. How can we prevent that decline and preserve our witness for generations to come? Make no mistake: maintaining our identity and witness is a struggle. We did not come by our theological confessions without struggle, and we do not maintain them without intentionality. We are, after all, wrestling not against flesh and blood. For such a battle, we need the full armor of God and the courage to stand (Eph 6:10–20). The influences we all feel from our culture do not typically lead us toward Christian faith but pressure us to be conformed to this present evil age (Rom 12:1–2).

I want to suggest several theses for preserving the generational longevity of Christian institutions. As an homage to Richard John Neuhaus, I have eleven to present, with one proviso—these theses and my experience are more grounded in higher education, but I think they have general applicability, whatever your institutional or ministry-related entity may look like.

Thesis 1: Embrace without Apology the Fact that the Character of Institutions—in Keeping with the Historic Nature of Evangelicalism—Is Theologically Grounded

The emphases of the earliest evangelicals are a good place to start—the preaching of the gospel, the new birth and conversion, the felt presence of the Holy Spirit, and an activist faith, all of which stand on biblical authority. But, of course, evangelicalism is broader now than those core features of the eighteenth-century revival movements; still, all of us as evangelicals confess the authority of Scripture and the centrality of the divinely incarnated, crucified, risen, and enthroned Jesus Christ as proclaimed in the gospel. So whatever shape you give to the evangelicalism of your tradition, you must recognize the theological character of your institution or ministry—and defend it.

It is not too dogmatic, or too particular—nor should it be embarrassing—to recognize that the gospel (which Paul, of course, maintained is “according to the Scriptures”) involves a body of teaching and furthermore brings with it historical content that must be maintained and taught. Preserving and passing on all those traditions is the work of discipleship, the overarching function of our institutions.

To declare the centrality and lordship of Jesus Christ is to commit yourself to a significant backstory that contextualizes and defines what we mean when we refer to the gospel.

That story begins with Creation and the Fall, the deterioration of the humans made in God’s image, and the corruption of the whole creation, until God’s plan of rescue emerges. The story of Abraham, Moses, Israel and the Exodus, and of course the subsequent failures of Israel and Judah that led to the Exile and an age of wrath, with the prophetic promises that one day God would restore them by changing the inclination of their hearts and establishing a new covenant through a son of David who would rule the nations, these are the bare essentials of the scriptural story that reaches its initial fulfillment in the coming of Jesus, who began his ministry by announcing, as did his kinsman and forerunner, John, the near and imminent arrival of the kingdom of God.

Though the story of Jesus takes some surprising turns, especially with his rejection and death, it is nonetheless the fulfillment of the ancient scriptural story, and even now that story remains incomplete. In another surprising turn, the apostles learned from Jesus that, following his resurrection, he would depart and return again to complete his work, to restore and judge the earth and its peoples, to raise the dead, and heal the nations with leaves from the tree of life (Rev 19:11–22:5).

Evangelical Christian higher education has core convictions and deep biblical roots, and we ignore them to our own peril.

All of us must commit to lifelong learning and to a regular internal curriculum of professional development, whereby we continue to discuss and refine our biblical worldview and the implications of it for all of our disciplines. It is a theological task. Any Christian who confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord of all things visible and invisible (Col 1:15–20) must reckon with the all-encompassing reach into all areas of life and thinking of that confession.

By the way, I think one of the finest things that IACE does in addition to these conferences is the faculty development gathering, when faculty from our institutions have concentrated time to press forward on issues relating to faith and learning. We have had thirty-five faculty from Houston Christian University (HCU) attend these conferences, and they are the best thing we have done externally for professional development on these topics.

Thesis II: Grasp the Nettle of the Foundational Ethical Traditions That Are Inextricably Woven into the Tapestry of the Gospel and Make Them Part of the Character and Teaching Content of our Institutions

This is a particularly hard reality to face up to, because when it comes to “ethics,” we are inclined to separate it from “theology” and then allow for a little more latitude. Certainly, there are difficult moral questions for which there is not a clear “thus saith the Lord” answer. But that is also true of abstract theology, and the existence of difficult issues should not prevent us from speaking clearly where Scripture speaks clearly, whether the subject is classical doctrine or traditional ethics.

The sexual revolution, which goes back at least as far as the 1950s, has accelerated dramatically in the last twenty years and threatens to make cowards of us all. The sexual habits of many of our own evangelical students is surprising, to say the least. And what they are willing to tolerate as an ethical practice, and even justify within their own theological frame of reference, for themselves and others, is equally as distressing. Theology and ethics do not live in separate categories. Both are very experiential and have a mutual influence upon one another.

I am sure all of us have seen it, the case of staunch evangelicals who have changed their theology based upon tragic family issues. We need to make sure that the revolutionary changes and prevailing ethical compromises in sexual behavior regarding life, marriage, and gender in our culture are not allowed to undermine the strength, quality, and character of our historic, biblical, and theological commitments.

Biblically, we must face the fact that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to separate the proclaimed gospel from all of the moral teaching that undergirds it, surrounds it, and is deeply embedded within it. I fear that we have drawn too sharp a distinction between theology and ethics, or between the gospel as a bare plan of salvation and obedience, as if the latter were an additional course of action for special disciples. “Making disciples” according to Matthew 28:19–20 involves “teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I’ve commanded you.”

Foundational theology in Scripture, and by “foundational theology” I am including the gospel, carries with it a body of ethics. Are we not exhorted to repent as a first step in believing the gospel? Are not Gentiles from the first moments of belief required to give up their idolatries? As believers, are we not exhorted to confess our sins to the great high priest, whose ongoing heavenly function is to make intercession for us (Heb 4:14–16; cf. 1 John 1:8–2:2)? Of course, believing the gospel still requires a lot of unpacking in all dimensions, including moral issues, but moral teaching is not optional and is frequently and precisely what is being further unpacked in the pastoral letters.

When Paul exhorts the readers of Ephesians 4:17ff not to walk as the unbelieving Gentiles walk, “in the futility of their mind,” he goes on to describe their calloused, sensual behavior, practicing “every kind of impurity with greediness.”

But when he comes to reminding the Ephesians of how they learned Christ, a reference to the initial phases of their conversion (cf. Col 1:6–7), he contrasts that lifestyle with the gospel they were first taught. He says about their former patterns of behavior, “but you did not learn Christ in this way, if indeed you have heard him, and have been taught in him, just as truth is in Jesus.” Their former manner of life must be laid aside, because they have learned Christ, the truth that is in Jesus. Put another way, using Paul’s language, “the old self, which was being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit,” is inconsistent with the body of truth they were taught when they first learned about the Christ. Thus, the alternative to that life of corruption and deception comes from the gospel, the truth that they learned in Jesus, whereby they are renewed in their minds by the Spirit (Eph 4:17–24).

To reinforce this connection between gospel and discipleship, both of which are overlapping bodies of content taught and learned, it should be noted that the teaching that involves how Jesus followers are to live is often, as here in Ephesians 4, based on a cross–resurrection pattern. That is, the blending of gospel and teaching is seen in the fact that the New Testament writers teach what we could call a gospel-shaped ethic. Here, dying to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, and putting off the old self and its habits of anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech are grounded on the self-denial epitomized by the cross, while putting on the new self and living a life of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience, loving and forgiving each other are characteristic of the new life empowered by the Spirit and are associated with the resurrection (see Col 3:1–14).

The whole ministry of the Spirit also reinforces the connection between the gospel and ethics. The gift of the Spirit is best understood as being at its core a work of holiness and righteousness. The Spirit guides and leads, and gives gifts with empowerment, and it must be remembered that all of these are enabling tokens, initial experiences here and now, of living in God’s presence, of his work of making us holy, transforming us as his children toward and into the completed newness of life that will come on the last day, when we are resurrected by the power of the Spirit who indwells us (Rom 8:9–11) and we are made fully like Christ. The resurrection is both a physical and a moral transformation.

I do not want to get too far afield exegetically, but it is important for us, particularly in these days of extreme moral laxity, which is a terrible threat to the integrity of our institutions, to take seriously the moral practices that are the everyday stuff of the gospel that we believe. Let me point to one more set of texts that reinforces this important biblical notion, specifically, that moral transformation is a core element of biblical theology and the new birth.

I call our attention to an often overlooked but very significant scriptural expectation predicted explicitly in Deuteronomy 30:6, Ezekiel 36:25–27, and Jeremiah 31:31–33. These Old Testament texts were often connected in later Jewish literature, and there may even have been some intertextual echoing between and among them.⁵ Employing different metaphors, they all refer to a restorationist promise pertaining to moral renewal and cleansing. Israel will go into exile because of her sins, but she will one day be not only forgiven but cleansed and enabled to walk in obedience to the commandments of the Lord.

These Scriptures are often linked together rather explicitly, and the harmonized promise is that one day the Lord will overcome the moral inabilities of his people and he will, by changing the inclinations of their hearts, by writing his Torah on their hearts, or by giving them his Spirit and inaugurating a new covenant, enable his people to fulfill the requirements they have previously been unable to obey, transforming them to live lives of righteousness and faithfulness.

These scriptural promises are collectively activated in 2 Corinthians 3, where the Spirit writes not on tablets of stone but on human hearts, instituting a new covenant, leading to liberation from darkness, and the transformation of life into Christ-likeness, which comes from the Lord, the Spirit.

The same eschatological hope that God’s people will one day have their hearts inclined to obedience is also reflected in Romans, where the justified “doers of the law” give evidence of “the law written on their hearts” (2:13–15). Or, note the transition from the wretched man of Romans 7:24 to the man of Romans 8:13, who is putting to death the deeds of the flesh. The cry for rescue at the end of Romans 7 is answered by the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus in 8:1-2. This work of the Spirit for those in Christ reflects a thematic connection with the aforementioned Old Testament passages. In Romans 7, the will is incapable of obedience, just like the heart of Israel in Deuteronomy 29:4, which is subsequently changed and reoriented in Deuteronomy 30:6. The heart of God’s people is not inclined to obedience until the circumcision of heart takes place and/or the gift of the Spirit is given, which enables those who are in Christ to fulfill the requirement of the law (8:4). The Spirit of life in Christ Jesus transforms those in Christ, so that those whose mind is set on the Spirit can do the things of the Spirit, submit to the law of God, and put to death the deeds of the body (see 8:5–14).

This is no counsel of perfection, because the following text in Romans 8 makes it clear that the curse will not be fully lifted until our final adoption as sons and daughters, the resurrection of the body (8:20–25). But neither should our ongoing brokenness deny the already inaugurated reality of the heart changing, new covenant gift of the Spirit. We cannot excuse ourselves from the greater faithfulness to which we are both called and enabled. “Shall we sin more that grace may abound? God forbid! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?” (Rom. 6:1–2).

The transforming presence of the Spirit, one of the clear distinctives of historic evangelicalism, growing out of the German and Puritan pietistic movements of the seventeenth century and the revival movements of the eighteenth century, is one of the great means of preserving the integrity and character of our institutions.

First of all, such deep devotional experiences promote a greater effectiveness when we pray in the Spirit (Eph 6:20) and call upon the Lord to help us.

Second, teaching ourselves, as administrators, faculty, and staff, thereby also mentoring our students in the ways of discipleship, will make a difference in the preservation of the evangelical traditions of our institutions. Our students of today are the trustees of tomorrow. It matters what kind of experience they have, what kind of university they come to love and appreciate, and therefore what kind of theological/ethical traditions they will with integrity uphold when one day the baton is handed to them. Experiences now of renewal and revival, habits of discipleship and Bible study, community worship, and the disciplines of the Spirit taught, practiced, and witnessed make a difference in the theological worldview these future trustees will bring to bear when their day comes to have fiduciary responsibility over the mission of the university.

Thesis III: The Hiring Process Is a Crucial Moment When It Comes to Having and Preserving the Character and Mission of a Christian Institution

Later I will refer to written documents and their importance for our confessional continuity, but day in and day out it is the people, faculty and staff, who carry the tradition and character of the institution. All of the brochures in the world, declaring in glossy print the Christian claims of an institution, cannot overcome the failures of personnel to embrace, expound, and affirm the Christian identity of the institution. If the recruiting materials and fundraising newsletters do not match what really goes on in the classroom or in student life, you may expect not only disappointment but cynicism and, eventually, conflict.

When you hire someone, you should never accept their mere consent, no matter how good their credentials are academically, to “appreciate” or “be sensitive to” your culture and character. I used to know of a situation where an interviewer would refer to the “expectations of our constituents” and then ask, “Are you all right with that?” You do not want people who merely tolerate your history and tradition. You want people who embrace it.

The interviewing process is never perfect, but an intentional process with clear doctrinal expectations is a major step in the right direction.

And the doctrinal and ethical questions in an interview process must never be relegated only to a provost or president—as if the faculty and staff are there to check out the candidate’s academic and professional credentials, while the higher administration will ask the awkward “spiritual” questions.

Every level of screening and conversation in the interviewing process must include the full profile of expectations, not only professional credentials, work experience, and job descriptions but the candidate’s good faith embracing of the Christian identity, mission, and core convictions of the institution. Does the candidate want to be at an institution like yours? Does he or she want to share in the project of an evangelical Christian university? Or do they simply want a job?

And if you are in a situation where there has been slippage from your historic theological and spiritual core, then you as president or chief executive officer must interview every candidate until you have rebuilt throughout the organization the walls of trust and commitment to the mission and character of your institution. This means building a mission-committed team to lead the university is absolutely crucial. More on this point later.

Thesis IV: Maintain Accountability to the Core Convictions of the Institution

The trustees/directors, administrative leadership, departmental leaders, and every individual in the institution must embrace the core identity of the institution. This does not mean that everyone has the same level of theological sophistication, or even the same ability to articulate the nuances of your historic confession, but every person must in good faith support the identity and mission of the institution.

As Christian leaders and administrators, most of us will admit that in addition to financial stresses, personnel matters are the most challenging aspect of our jobs. But if you make a mistake, face up to it. The hiring process is never perfect, and you will make mistakes. If you know you have to make a hard decision, the sooner you can responsibly make it, the better. Avoid tenure. If you have it, develop a long-range plan to grandfather yourself out of it.

Thesis V: Officially Document the Core Convictions That Are Central to Your Institution’s Embracing of the Christian Faith

I am referring to more than an appeal to biblical authority or even the creeds or the great councils. Those are of course foundational. Those are the convictions that C. S. Lewis would have called “mere Christianity,” and surely those are part of any authentically Christian university. And there are also other convictions that perhaps belong to certain denominational traditions but may not be as important to others. However, if they are important to the continuity of your institution, write them down and be transparent about them.

Whatever is important to your institution to maintain its identity, put it in writing. Be clear about it, and make it part of hiring and accountability. We can no longer take it for granted that our appeals to Scripture or creeds and long-standing historical traditions are sufficient when it comes, as indeed it has, to litigating whether you can refuse to hire people outside your faith and practices, or not allow coeducational, opposite gender roommates in your dormitories.

At our institution, we have documents that affirm historic Christian doctrines, but we have also developed something that we call “Ten Core Convictions,” which I would be happy to share with anyone. Or you can find them on our website.⁶ They pertain to ethical traditions and largely relate to life, marriage, gender, sexual practices, race, and other ethnic relations.

For us, these core convictions are biblical responses to the cultural hotspots that change as key issues from generation to generation. But because these major questions change–who could possibly have guessed twenty years ago that we would be facing and fighting the kinds of legal practices and proposals that we encounter today–we must be adaptive, ready to give a documented justification for our historic convictions.

We require the annual reaffirmation of our Foundational Documents, which include the Ten Pillars and all our confessional documents, on the part of everyone, including trustees.⁷ It is a simple reaffirmation issued
with a contract or annual letter of engagement. And with regard to our Foundational Documents, a super majority of trustees is required to change them.

One last word on this matter. It is not just the threat of litigation that mandates these kinds of written documents. It is also the importance of having explicit convictions that each generation is not only shaped by but is beholden to throughout the years. All of us have seen churches, and I would add corporations and institutions, that have changed drastically and dramatically, but not for the better, with the change of leadership. You have to have theological affirmations and practical policy traditions of compliance that no simple change of leadership can wipe away with a memo or a simple majority vote.

Thesis VI: Financial Stability

Every chief executive officer and leadership team must be clear-eyed about the sources of revenue. For Christian higher educational institutions, probably eighty-five to ninety percent of your annual income comes from student related numbers—room, board, books, tuition, and fees. Then, there is endowment, fundraising, and auxiliary enterprises. In our institutions, endowment is a blessing, but unless you are hugely endowed, you probably derive something like five to seven percent of your annual income from the endowment, if that.

Obviously, student numbers matter, so recruiting and retention are major operations for evangelical institutions—or should be. If you are a special purpose group or some other form of nonprofit evangelical agency, annual fundraising is likely a much more significant percentage of your annual budget. But the principles I am suggesting here will apply to you as well.

The immediate cause of virtually all closures and failures of evangelical institutions is financial, but in many cases, there is more to the story. The immediate cause of my father’s death almost 40 years ago was heart failure. But the truth is, it was smoking, emphysema, and lung cancer that killed him. Similarly, other causes often interact with financial instability. The loss of mission distinctiveness can quickly lead to declining student numbers and that in turn to financial decline.

Making money is not our mission, but we have no mission if we do not have financial margin. I cannot overstate the importance of having a mission-driven chief financial officer who can understand the financial complexities of an institution, look for ways to prioritize financial matters with respect to the overall mission of the institution, and serve as a close colleague who will give you bad news early on when it is necessary.

The sense of vocation and mission of our people is always an extra value, but it can never be an excuse for inefficiency. Pay your people well and expect excellence.

Remember: No margin, no mission. Every evangelical leader must pay careful attention to the efficient and faithful use of financial resources. It is mandatory.

All of which means that it is often tempting to compromise our mission integrity to gain the favor of a wealthy donor, or perhaps, we think, to increase our student numbers. All of us know those temptations. They must be resisted. We might be financially benefited in the short run if we cut confessional corners, but in the long run, not only are we called no matter the cost to be faithful to the Lord, but our student numbers and our donor support will benefit if we hold fast to the distinctiveness of our convictions. At least that is my experience.

Thesis VII: There Is No Substitute for an Executive Team Committed to Mission

The first obligation of a Christian leader is to build a mission-faithful team around himself or herself. Here it is also tempting to trade competence for faithfulness, but those should never be a zero-sum game. Every organization, no matter how flat it is, has some verticality, and starting at the top, the entire profile of mission faithfulness and professional expertise must be honored. If you find yourself trading one for the other, I promise you, you’re making a mistake.

Thesis VIII: Produce a Written Version

Many years ago, when I was a new college president, I was pestered by a good colleague to produce a vision statement. Frankly, I did not at that time see the benefit of it. I thought the vision was clear. We are going to be a Christian university with academic excellence. What more needed to be said? Well, it turns out that a lot more needs to be said. Vision documents and strategic plans can often become tedious and time-consuming, especially when they are simply put on the shelf and not utilized. But when they are well done, they make a huge difference. Never underestimate the intelligence of your people, but do not overestimate the quality of the information they have received about the institution and its direction.

I think it is beneficial to have these kinds of aspirational and strategic documents, not only for your own trustees, but for your entire internal cohort of stakeholders and for external audiences to know who you are and what you are trying to accomplish.

A comprehensive document that defines who you are by your confessional statements and beliefs, including a vision narrative that inspires your team and others as to where you want to go, as well as a strategic plan that explains how you want to get there, can be of immense value. Such a comprehensive document keeps everyone on the same page, prioritizes spending, gives focus to your operations, and inspires diligence, connecting what you believe with where you want to go and how you are going to get there.

Thesis IX: Never Forget the Educational and Academic Mission of Your Institution

With all the compliance demands, financial requirements, and even confessional challenges, it is easy to forget that providing a biblically grounded, Christ-centered education for our students is our number one responsibility. You must have people who are great teachers, who love students, and who in years to come will be thought of by alumni as the professor or staff member who changed their lives. You must have faculty and staff who do more than fill up a classroom spot or occupy a desk. They must be mentors, counselors, friends, and even at times parents and Dutch uncles.

And, among the faculty—not every faculty member, of course—but among your faculty, you must have those of serious academic reputation outside the university. Platforms for distributing research and academic work have changed from the older patterns of publishing, but by whatever platform is in vogue, every evangelical institution needs to have a few scholars of national and international reputation in their chosen academic field.

The last word has not been said in every imaginable discipline: whether it is history, psychology, political science, biology, engineering, philosophy, health and gender studies, pedagogy, or anything else under creation. I can tell you that in my own field of New Testament studies, the discovery of new texts and the more inclusive use of other ancient documents have led to new questions pertaining, for example, to Jew–Gentile relations. New theological schools and specialties, such as the “within Judaism” studies of both Paul and Jesus, have emerged and need engagement by evangelical minds. The tragic re-emergence of antisemitism on many secular college campuses makes it all the more important to ask questions about supersessionist views of the church with respect to biblical Israel. Further, the questions raised by well-known evangelical pastors about the modern state of Israel and its relationship (if any) to those whom Paul calls his “kinsmen according to the flesh” need to be addressed. The evangelical pastors and laypeople who listen to them deserve help from evangelical scholars.

Thesis X: Work for the Alignment of Student Life and the Academic Experience

Time and space prevent a lengthy discussion here, but I will simply say that several years ago I began noticing a disconnect between the directions taken in student life and the desired direction of the university. It was nothing sinister; it was just different. The truth is the student is faced with two important curricula—the classroom curriculum and the student life curriculum. And these need to be coordinated and mutually supportive.

A lot of synergy can be gained with better alignment between academics and student life. One of the things we have done—and I simply mention it as an idea—is that I asked student life leadership to report to the Provost instead of to me. That move gave student life leadership a much closer connection to academic goals and aspirations, and it also helped to involve faculty more in the workings of student life. I think it has been an outstanding move for us operationally, and I simply commend it to you. But whatever you do, realize how important student life is to the Christian formation of your students and work to coordinate the goals and aspirations of student life and its leadership with the goals and aspirations of academic leadership.

Thesis XI: Cultivate Moral Courage

When you’ve done all—stand (Eph 6:13). This virtue is an outgrowth of our activist history. I sometimes read criticisms of evangelicals for their “political involvement,” but I disagree. We may at times be on the wrong side of an issue, but engagement itself is not the problem. Our witness in the world cannot avoid the policies and practices of our social contracts, whether local, state, national, or international. We must have the courage to stand and pay the price for what we believe. I think the very founding of IACE is a reflection on moral courage. There’s a lot more to that story, but I have no doubt of the truthfulness of what I have just maintained.

“Moral courage” is not just courage; it is also moral. It is a courage that is engendered and activated by a deep sense of what is right, and what is right is the determinative factor in shaping such zeal. Moral courage is another way that a Christian institution distinguishes itself from others. We believe in the truth of what we confess, and we are willing to engage the powers for it. “We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, the powers, the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places” (Eph 6:12).

Our evangelical forefathers contended for the faith and knew full well that the battle lines could break out at any number of points, whether it was religious liberty, Sabbatarian struggles, the temperance movement,
women’s suffrage, or the struggles for life, liberty, and justice for all. And while as institutions we typically fight a defensive struggle, we do have some offensive weapons. Our teaching and publishing must reflect our willingness to engage. The weapons of our warfare are not earthly; rather we must “destroy speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God…bringing every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor 10:5).

Watch and pray, and “be on the lookout, for your adversary the devil prowls about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour” (1 Pet 5:8). God bless you as you “fight the good fight of faith…contending earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the saints” (1 Tim 6:12; Jude 3).

1. David S. Dockery, “Evangelicalism: Past, Present, and Future,” Trinity Journal 36NS: 4-5. ↩︎
2. Dockery, “Evangelicalism,” 5. ↩︎
3. Thomas S. Kidd, Who Is an Evangelical? The History of a Movement in Crisis (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2019), especially chapter 1. ↩︎
4. Richard John Neuhaus, “The Christian University: Eleven Theses,” First Things, 59 January 1996. ↩︎
5. Jason A. Staples, Paul and the Resurrection of Israel: Jews, Former Gentiles, Israelites (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2024), see the excellent treatment of these texts, especially in chapters 2–4. ↩︎
6. Editor’s note: Houston Christian University, “The Ten Pillars 2030: The Core Convictions of HCU,” https://hc.edu/about-hcu/ten-pillars/pillars/, accessed February 10, 2026. ↩︎
7. Editor’s note: Houston Christian University, “Preamble,” https://hc.edu/university-policies/preamble/, accessed February 10, 2026.; Houston Christian University, “Statement of Mission and Vision,” https://hc.edu/university-policies/statement-of-mission-and-vision/, accessed February 10, 2026; Houston Christian University, “The Ten Pillars 2030: Scripture and a Christian Worldview,” https://hc.edu/about-hcu/ten-pillars/scripture-worldview/, accessed February 10, 2026. ↩︎