The Christian College Experience: An Evangelical MonasticismTimothy J. Peck

and Kaley Lindquist

The historical connection between the medieval religious orders and the rise of western

higher education is well documented.1 It is not an overstatement to assert that western higher

education grew from the soil of monastic Christian worshipping communities.2 However, most

colleges no longer envision themselves as Christian worshipping communities. The exception to

this appears to be those distinctively Christian schools, such the members of the Council of

Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU), many of which seek to root their college

experience in the context of a Christian worship.3 Recently, J. Smith has also explored Christian

higher education from the perspective of monastic opportunities.4 This article will build on this

idea by sketching how Christian monastic orders led to the emergence of higher education,

explore how most CCCU schools embody a unique quasi monastic Rule of Life, and then

1

1R. Stark, For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003), 62; H. Perkin, “History of Universities,” The History of Higher Education second edition. Eds. L. F. Goodchild and H. S. Welchsler (Needham Heights, MA: Simon and Shuster, 1989), 3-5; B. Cobban, The Medieval Universities: Their Development and Organization (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1988), 21-47; M. L. Colish, Medieval Foundations of the Western Intellectual Tradition, 400-1400 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1997), 265-75; Daly, L. J. The Medieval University, 1200-1400 (New York, NY: Sheed and Ward, 1961), 1-29.

2Monasticism is being used in this paper to include the mendicant religious orders.

3For the purposes of this study, CCCU schools will be referred to as “colleges,” since not all CCCU schools are universities.

4J. K. A. Smith, Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview and Culture Formation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2009), 223-30.

suggest some preliminary insights about Christian higher education based on this correspondence

with Christian monasticism.

Christian Monasticism: Worship and Learning

Historical knowledge of the origins of Christian monasticism originates with Anthony of

Egypt, whose monastic way of life is preserved in Athanasius’ Life of St. Anthony of Egypt.5

Athanasius describes third and fourth century desert monasticism through the eyes and growing

influence of Anthony. By the third century some Christians were withdrawing from urban

centers and fleeing to the Egyptian desert to pursue holiness, discipline, and intimacy with God.

At this early stage, Christian monasticism consisted primarily of laymen and laywomen living

ascetic eremitic lives. Anthony encounters some of these hermits early on in his own quest for

spiritual transformation. By the early third century Pachomius began to band his hermits

together in intentional monastic communities, creating a cenobitic way of life and laying the

groundwork for future monastic orders. Elizabeth Rapley summarizes, “Instead of living alone,

these men and women joined together in communities, retaining the privacy of their cells but

otherwise working and praying together under the direction of an abbot.”6

For nearly a century, these communities existed in relative autonomy from one another

and the institutional Church episcopate. However, with the appearance of Benedict of Nursa (c.

2

5“The Life of St. Anthony of Egypt,” Athanasius: Select Works and Letters, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Volume IV Series II, eds. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. H. Ellershaw (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 196-221; Also E. Rapley, The Lord as their Portion: The Story of the Religious Orders and How they Shaped our World (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2011), 2-6.

6Rapley, The Lord as their Portion, 4.

480-547), many of these autonomous monastic communities found rhythm, order and

institutional Church acceptance under the Benedict’s Rule of Life. Under Benedictine Rule,

For about four hours a day they performed ‘the work of God,’ the Opus Dei, singing

together the psalms and antiphons that made up the divine office. The service was

simple, and performed in a simple, unadorned oratory. For four more hours they read, or

prayed, or perhaps worked at copying manuscripts or educating oblates. Six more hours

were given over to manual, or domestic, labor.7

Benedictine monasticism dominated the monastic scene in Europe until the rise of the

mendicant religious orders, such as the Order of the Friars Minor (Franciscans), the Dominicans,

and later the Jesuits.8 These later mendicant religious orders were far more missional; however,

like the Benedictines, they also adopted a particular Rule of Life. Later second orders were

created for women, and third orders emerged for laypeople who lived a “mixed” life, adopting

variants of this Rule of Life while still attending to responsibilities outside of the monastery or

cloister.

From early on these communities envisioned themselves as worshipping and learning

communities, with primacy on worship. Learning came as an outgrowth and expression of

worship. Benedict even used the metaphor of a school to describe monastic communities that

adopted his Rule.9 One reason for this growing emphasis on learning is because monks and

3

7Rapley, The Lord as their Portion, 9. Certainly other Rules of Life appeared as well, such as the Augustinian Rule and Rule of St. Basil. However, none came close to the sheer numbers of Benedictine monastic communities.

8D. Knowles, “The Cultural Influence of English Medieval Monasticism,” Cambridge Historical Journal 7/3(1943), 147.

9Benedict, Holy Rule of St. Benedict. Trans. B. Verhayen (Atchison, KS: St. Benedict’s Abbey, n.d.), electronic version, location 133.

friars were among the few people in medieval society to possess the two requisites for

intellectual work: shared leisure and books.10 Thus these monastic communities became one of

the few places where learning and education flourished in medieval Europe until the rise of the

universities they created.11

Early Western Higher Education: Learning and Worship

With the rise of the scholastic movement, many monastic communities became centers

for higher education.12 By this time, these communities had long since ceased merely educating

monks, nuns, and clergy, and had become an essential social institution for educating the

aristocracy, preparing many of them for civil service.13

These early universities expanded quickly, even as Benedictine monasticism was

beginning to decline in influence and numbers. In their first 150 years of existence, European

universities enrolled approximately 750,000 students, this in a time when the population of

London was never more than 35,000 people.14 By 1545, the Jesuits opened their first college,

and by the 1600s they were running over 400 colleges across Europe.15

4

10Knowles, “The Cultural Influence of English Medieval Monasticism,” 147. 11M. R. van Scoyoe, “Origin and Development of the University,” Peabody

Journal of Education 39/6(1962), 323. 12Van Scoyoe, “Origin and Development of the University,” 324. 13N. F. Cantor, “The Crisis of Western Monasticism, 1050-1130,”

American Historical Review 66/1 (1960), 47-48. 14Stark, For the Glory of God, 63. .15Rapley, The Lord as their Portion, 194.

The universities that emerged from these monasteries and religious orders continued to

focus on learning and worship, though subtly shifting the order and envisioning themselves as

primarily learning communities that learn in the context of worship. This ever so subtle shift put

priority on learning but still rooted learning in the context of Christian corporate worship. The

most obvious place this emphasis on worship is seen is in compulsory chapel that characterized

university life from the emergence of universities in the late medieval period until the early

twentieth century.16 In most universities, the chapel requirement institutionalized a commitment

to worship as a curricular feature in these learning communities. University chapel was an

artifact of the Liturgy of the Hours that had characterized monastic community life. 17 In fact,

some universities continued to describe their chapel as “Morning Prayers” or “Matins,” recalling

the Liturgy of the Hours. Over time the university sermon became a distinct preaching genre.18

Later Western Higher Education: Learning Eclipses Worship

Until the early twentieth century, most state schools and private colleges required

corporate worship as part of the university curricula. In the United States, the first to break away

5

16Compulsory chapel is not the only aspect of early university life that reflects this connection between learning and worship; however, for the purposes of this study it provides an indicator that is easy to document.

17See R. Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West (Collegeville, MI: Liturgical Press, 1993), 300.

18H. O. Olds, The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures in the Worship of the Christian Church, vol. 3, The Medieval Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 298-99, Olds, The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures in the Worship of the Christian Church, vol. 6, The Modern Age (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 363-66.

from this this was University of Wisconsin, which abolished compulsory chapel in 1869. Within

the next quarter century, other state universities followed suit.19 According to Marsden,

The chapel tradition, which had been integral to university life since the Middle Ages,

had persisted into the interwar era. Clearly church related and private institutions had an

interest in retaining this symbol of a venerable heritage, which ensured at least one place

for Christianity in official university life.20

However, this was not without resistance or controversy. Compulsory chapel was under

attack from students and other constituents in private universities, even as state schools were

quietly phasing out compulsory chapel. By the early twentieth century, compulsory chapel was

phased out in Amherst, Brown, Chicago, Dartmouth, Vassar, Williams, Yale and Howard.21

Other schools retained a chapel hour, but shortened it, diminished its frequency, or transformed it

into convocation for administrators to make announcements and faculty to give lectures on their

research.22 When the dust finally settled, learning had eclipsed worship in American higher

education. Worship had moved from being a curricular to an extracurricular feature of university

life, with most voluntary chapel gatherings dwindling down to no more than a handful of

participants.23 Many schools outsourced these voluntary worship gatherings to organizations

such as the Young Men’s Christian Association. No longer did these institutions envision

themselves as worshipping communities.

6

19Schmidt, The Liberal Arts College, 191. 20Marsden, The Soul of the American University, 344. 21Marsden, The Soul of the American University, 345. 22Schmidt, The Liberal Arts College, 191. 23Schmidt, The Liberal Arts College, 191-92.

Christian Colleges: Learning and Worship

The exception to this trend seems to be Catholic and Protestant universities that

intentionally seek to intentionally preserve their Christian identity. This study will focus on

Protestant schools that are part of the CCCU.24 In comparing monastic Rules of Life with many

common traits among CCCU schools, the following parallels were noted.25

Monastic Rule of Life Christian College Rule of LifeDaily Worship in the Liturgy of the Hours or Divine Office

Corporate worship in Chapel

Life of Study Required religion courses and Faith Integration

Engagement in manual labor or missional activities

Service requirement

The CCCU is an international association of intentionally Christian colleges and

universities. The mission these institutions are the integration of scholarship, service, and biblical

truth.26 The faith-based intentionality of the schools within this association made for an ideal

sample of higher education institutions. By controlling the variable of commitment to

Christianity, we could make correlations between the monastic Rules of Life and those of

intentional Christian institutions today, if they were found to exist.

7

24For more on Catholic schools, see J. T. Burtchaell, The Dying of the Light: The Disengagement of Colleges and Universities from their Christian Churches (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998).

25Smith develops somewhat overlapping categories that include residential dorm life (Desiring the Kingdom, 226-27).

26 “About CCCU,” Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, https://www.cccu.org/about (accessed

March 3, 2013).

The institutions, though all intentionally Christian, vary from each other in many ways.

There are a variety of different denominations represented; although not exclusively, these

include approximately 25 schools with Baptist affiliations, nine from the Presbyterian Church,

eight align with the Church of the Nazarene, five Christian Churches and Churches of Christ,

four Christian and Missionary Alliance, four Free Methodist, three Mennonite, and one

Pentecostal. The institutions are located across all regions of the United States and include some

locations in Canada. California is home to twelve of the institutions; Texas and Tennessee both

house eight, while Illinois and Indiana house seven. Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware,

Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, N. Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah,

Vermont, Wisconsin, and Wyoming are the only states without any CCCU schools.27

Research on these institutions and their Rule of Life for students was done between

October and December, 2012. Each institution listed as part of the CCCU was researched based

on the four aforementioned requirements: corporate worship, religious education, service

involvement, and faith integration. This was done through a method of document review of the

institutions’ website and course catalog; when necessary, admissions offices were contacted via

telephone. To be considered as an institution requiring each of these elements, the institution had

to explicitly state on their website or in their course catalog requirements for chapel, service,

and/or biblical or theological education courses that students had to meet in order to graduate. To

measure faith integration, an institution’s website had to have some statement of faith integration

in the classroom or commitment to relating scholarship in the classroom to faith perspectives.

8

27 “Members and Afiliates,” Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, https://www.cccu.org/about

(accessed March 3, 2013).

Corporate Worship

Required corporate worship or compulsory chapel attendance is an element that

distinctively separates Christian institutions from their secular counterparts. This is an important

aspect on the intentional Christian community. According to our research, 77.5% of CCCU

schools require their students to meet some type of chapel requirement in their time at the

institution. Thus, approximately 22% of these Christian institutions do not require students to

attend chapel. However, it was found that regardless of requirement, some format of corporate

worship was offered on campus every week.

Institutions integrate chapel requirements into their co-curriculum in different ways. Most

commonly the chapel requirement consists of attendance at weekly corporate worship gatherings

on campus. However, there are a variety of other methods implemented as well. For example,

Anderson University (South Carolina) presents students with various opportunities through their

program, “The Journey.”28 Through the Journey, spiritual development occurs through worship

services, concerts, conferences, and creative presentations. Students can choose which eight

events to attend in order to meet their semester requirements. It was found that the majority of

CCCU institutions do require corporate worship attendance.

Religious Education

It is also common for CCCU Schools to require students to complete one or more biblical

or theological education courses as part of their Core Competencies or General Education course

requirements. At these institutions, all students are required to take these courses, or choose from

9

28 Anderson University, “Journey Program,” Christian Life, http://www.andersonuniversity.edu/christianlife.aspx?id=2333 (accessed October, 2012).

a variety of classes, in order to meet the university requirements. For the purposes of this

research, we divided schools into four main categories of religious education requirements: no

requirement, 1-10 credits, 10-20 credits, 20 or more credits. Those institutions which choose to

require students to complete 20 or more credits of theological education generally count the

courses as a Biblical Studies Minor. Biola University in La Mirada, California, for example,

requires all students regardless of program to complete 30 credits of Biblical Studies and

Theology courses including four foundational courses, three intermediate courses, and three

elective courses.29

Research discovered that the majority of CCCU institutions require some set of religious

education courses as part of the core requirements of their education. However, the institutions

that do not require students to participate in these courses as part of graduation requirements

often still offer the option to take them as electives, minor, or majors. There is 95% significance

in correlation between CCCU schools that require biblical or theological education courses and

those that require ministry and service participation.

Faith Integration

In addition to required religious education classes, faith integration of a Christian worldview is

another component of many CCCU schools’ Rule of Life. Faith Integration of a Christian worldview

is an aspect of the Christian university that many CCCU institutions cling to as other aspects get

lost in the secularization of higher education. Faith integration is the idea that curriculum and co-

curriculum programming acknowledge the inherent relationship between the content of the

10

29 Biola University, “Biblical and Theological Studies Requirement,” Biola University 12-13 Catalog, http://www.biola.edu/catalog/downloads/12-13/06.20_12-13_Catalog_for_website.pdf (accessed October 2013).

subject matter and the content of faith.30 The goal

is to help students develop an ability to understand

these relationships “between the Christian faith and

human knowledge, particularly as expressed in the

various academic disciplines.”31 Institutions often

offer their own definition of faith integration and

articulate how the process of integration occurs at their campus. Azusa Pacific University in

Azusa, California offers this definition of faith integration, “students have opportunities to think

critically from a Christian point of view, to explore ideas from the vantage point of Christian tradition,

and to challenge, deepen, and affirm cultural, professional, or disciplinary perspectives related to the

content of their courses.”32

Over 86% of the institutions we looked at incorporate faith integration in their curriculum

and co-curriculum. This was measured by a statement about faith integration or Christian

worldview on the institution’s website or course catalog. It is understood that this method may be

a limitation to the study because it demands a written statement from each institution of their

commitment to faith integration when the commitment may exist but not be clearly articulated or

presented online. Those institutions that advertise their intentions to integrate faith with all

11

30 William Hasker, “Faith-Learning Integration: An Overview,” Christian Scholars Review 21, no. 3

(March 1992): 235.

31 William Hasker, “Faith-Learning Integration: An Overview,” Christian Scholars Review 21, no. 3 (March 1992): 234.

32 Paul Kaak, “Office of Faith Integration,” Azusa Pacific University, http://www.apu.edu/faithintegration/about/ (accessed March 3, 2013).

institutional programming seem to consider this a major piece of the mission and vision of the

institution.

These statements from CCCU institutions reflect the differing perspectives on faith

integration and the important role that it plays on campuses:

“We study and address a world made good by God, distorted by sin, redeemed in Christ,

and awaiting the fullness of God's reign. In these ways, scholarship at Calvin College draws from

the wellspring of Reformed beliefs and practices as it seeks to serve church, academic,

professional, and lay communities, and especially as it aims to be a leader in intentionally

Christian scholarship around the world.” – Calvin College, Grand Rapids, MI33

“This is faith integration at its best: synthesizing ideas from various academic disciplines

with a Christian worldview.” - George Fox University, Newberg, OR34

“At Northwestern College, we are committed to integrating faith with learning in the classroom,

athletic arena, performance venue, and residence hall. We pursue excellence in all areas because it honors

God and furthers Christ’s kingdom.” –Northwestern College, Orange City, IA35

12

33 Calvin College, “Our Mission,” Calvin College, https://www.calvin.edu/about/mission.html (accessed October, 2012).

34 “Mission, Vision, and Values,” George Fox University, http://www.georgefox.edu/about/mission_vision_values/index.html (accessed November, 2012)

35 “Vision for Learning at Northwestern,” Northwestern College, http://www.nwciowa.edu/about/vision-

for-learning (accessed November, 2012).

Service

Finally, ministry and service are central to the mission of the Christian faith. Research

proved that a majority of CCCU institutions encourage students to participate in on and off

campus ministry and service projects. However, there are very few schools that require all

students to complete ministry or service hours. Campuses present ministry and service in

different formats, just as with the other aforementioned elements. These opportunities are

available in the forms of service learning courses, freshman orientation service projects, missions

outreach teams, ministry experience.

According to our findings, 24 CCCU institutions require students to complete ministry

and service requirements. Almost 80% of institutions do not enforce a ministry and/or service

hour requirement. Those that do, have a

wide range of criteria and varying

numbers of hours required per semester,

year, or before graduation. It was found

that some schools require one serve day

as part of Freshman Orientation, others

students can choose a service course that

they will participate in for a semester,

some require 45 hours while others require 180 hours. There is no statistical significance in

correlation between service requirements and other elements. This may be because so few

institutions require service hour completion.

13

These four components of chapel, required religion courses, faith integration, and service

comprise a quasi-monastic Rule of Life for many CCCU schools. Although the remainder of this

study focuses primarily on the chapel requirement, future research about required religion

classes, faith integration and service requirements may yield fruitful data for further comparisons

between CCCU schools and Christian monasticism.

Learning from the Decline in Monasticism

Benedictine monasticism flourished during early medieval period of European history,

but was gradually eclipsed by the mendicant religious orders. Rapley observes that with the rise

of these orders of friars, “The inward-turning ethos of monasticism was exchanged for an ethos

of mission.”36 However, this growth among the mendicant orders leveled off by the nineteenth

century, and has also entered into a time of decline.37 Most of the colleges and universities

birthed by these religious orders no longer envision themselves as worshipping communities.

Here are some seminal insights that can be drawn between the correspondence between Christian

monasticism and CCCU schools.

The Church is More Than its Parishes

The institutional church of the fourth century wrestled with how to make sense of

emerging monastic communities and where to locate them in their ecclesiology. The institutional

church at this time was based on a geographically defined episcopal structure, with parishes

14

36Rapley, the Lord as their Portion, 63. 37Rapley, the Lord as their Portion, 21-25.

(local congregations) contained in local dioceses. This structure was dominated by clergy:

deacons, presbyters (leading congregations), and bishops (leading dioceses).

Monastic communities did not easily fit anywhere into this structure. Although located in

particular dioceses, monastic communities were nongeographic entities, attracting participants

from multiple dioceses. Moreover, early monastic communities were predominantly comprised

of laymen and laywomen rather than ordained clergy. Perhaps this is one reason why their daily

worship consisted of praying the Divine Hours rather than celebrating the Eucharist, since many

early monastic communities had no ordained clergy to preside over the Eucharist. Mendicant

religious orders such as the Dominicans and Franciscans traveled from region to region (diocese

to diocese) engaging in mission.

What was the institutional church to make of these communities? This became a vexing

question, as many clergy in the episcopal

structure grew wary of increasing

numbers from their parishes seeking

spiritual direction from monks, nuns, and

friars in these monastic communities.

Moreover, many presbyters and bishops

saw these communities as “sheep

stealing” and “poaching,” since they were

attracting participants from different

dioceses. Rapley notes:

For every bishop who encouraged

15

and endorsed them, there was another who worried about keeping them in their place. If

truth be told, monks could be hard to control. As collectives they were highly

independent, answering to no higher authority, practicing their own rules, going

sometimes to extremes that the bishops considered dangerous. As long as they were few

in number, it did not matter too much, but as monasticism found its place in the sun, the

episcopate had to take note. A relationship developed that was sometimes warm,

sometimes fractious.38

Ultimately, the episcopate had to find a place in their ecclesiology to account for these

communities, especially as they grew in power and influence. Ultimately both the western and

eastern theological traditions developed robust enough eccesiologies to account for monastic

communities. These communities were not parishes (local churches, congregations); however,

they were part of and valuable to the Church. In time monastic communities became centers for

parish renewal and training centers for clergy. Benedictine reformer Bernard did not hesitate to

call his monastery in Clairvaux a church (ecclesia), and it was not uncommon for a monastic

hermitage to be called ecclesiola, “little church.”39

Similarly, evangelicals often face the dilemma of how to fit the Christian college into

their ecclesiology. Faculty, students and administrators will frequently make statements like,

“The college is not the local church,” “We should not do things on our campus that local

churches are doing,” and, “We should just encourage our students to attend a church instead of

16

38Rapley, the Lord as their Portion, 7. 39L. C. Cunningham, “Monasticism as a Schola: Some Reflections from the

Ivory Tower,” A Monastic Vision for the 21st Century Ed. P. Hart (Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 2006), 80.

having worship on campus.” Similarly congregations in proximity to Christian colleges

sometimes have an uneasy and suspicious attitude toward the Christian college, fearing that what

happens on the campus might usurp, threaten, or undermine the local church’s ministry.

Here the early medieval Church’s response to monasticism is instructive. Ultimately

theologians made a distinction between a parish (a congregation or local church, geographically

defined) and the Church. There was recognition that although the parish is the primary localized

expression of the Church, the Church is more than the sum of its parishes. The Church

recognized that these religious orders were legitimate Christian communities that were important

to the renewal, health and growth of the Church.40

Some Protestant theologians have also explored this notion as well, such as Donald

Bloesch’s category of “evangelical communities” and Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s discussion of the

church being reborn through a new monasticism.41 Likewise, missiologist Ralph Winter’s

seminal but highly influential address at the All Asia Mission Consultation in 1973 explored the

idea that modalities (the parish, local church, congregation) and sodalities (the mission society,

monastic community, religious order, etc.) are both structures that are essential to God’s

redemptive mission.42 This suggestion goes beyond the typical church/parachurch dichotomy,

17

40 L. Bouyer, Church of God: Body of Christ and Temple of the Holy Spirit (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2011), 468-93.

41See for example D. G. Bloesch’s discussion of “evangelical communities” in The Church: Sacraments, Worship, Ministry, Mission (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 214-18. For the “new monasticism,” see D. Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1963), 38-39.

42R. Winter, “Two Structures of God’s Redemptive Mission,” Perspectives on the World Christian Movement (Pasadena, CA: William Carey, 1999), 220-30.

instead suggesting that the universal Church is comprised of more than the sum of its parishes.43

In this more robust ecclesiology there is room for monastic orders, mission societies, and

Christian colleges. From this perspective, the Christian college need not fear being a community

of worship, service, discipleship and witness any more than a Benedictine monastery or a

missionary organization.44

Pressure to Relax the Rule of Life

From their inception, monastic communities have faced both internal and external

pressure to relax their Rule of Life.45 Just among the Benedictines, observers find a constant

trajectory of relaxing of the Rule of Life leading to renewal movements. Over time many

Benedictine monasteries became powerful and wealthy, sometimes employing their own servants

and landlords who supervised the work of serfs on manorial estates.46 The most obvious

example of this was the Cluny Abbey in Bourgogne, France.

Increasing numbers of the nobility would join monastic communities as a means of social

advancement. These canons would take third order vows, while at the same time eating well,

drinking in excess, hunting, carrying around weapons, and often marrying.47 In some monastic

18

43T. Oden, Life in the Spirit: Systematic Theology Vol. 3 (San Francisco, CA: Harper San Francisco, 1993), 282.

44In the Evangelical word, this more robust ecclesiology evidenced in part in the “new monasticism.” See E. Carter, “The New Monasticism: A Literary Review,” Journal of Spiritual Formation and Soul Care 5/2(2012), 268-84.

45This trajectory generally follows the predictions of the theory expounded in R. Stark and W. Bainbridge: A Theory of Religion (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1987), 270-78.

46 Cantor, “The Crisis of Western Monasticism, 1050-1130,” 48. 47Rapley, the Lord as their Portion, 29.

communities wealthy families would provide monks, nuns, and friars with servants to engage in

manual labor to free the monastic family member to focus more on studies and worship. The

Cluny monastic houses built massive libraries and exerted enormous power in the institutional

Church and society.

Because of this gradual relaxing of the Benedictine Rule of Life, various reform

movements emerged. Perhaps most famous was Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153), which

ultimately gave rise to the Cistercian or white robed Benedictines. The Trappists were also a

Benedictine reform movement.

Likewise the Christian college continually faces both internal and external pressure to

relax its own Rule of Life. This has often been described as a “secularization” trend among

distinctively Christian colleges and universities. According to Ringenberg,

Repeatedly, the secularization battle has been fought most visibly on the issue of required

chapel. Usually the practice of required chapel continued well into the period of

secularization, so that required chapel—or even chapel at all--seemed somewhat out of

place. Frequently when a secularizing school continued chapel, it did so to provide a

sense of institutional unity. Nevertheless, chapel services in secularizing institutions

usually became increasingly unpopular with the students because the students saw the

requirement as inconsistent with the changing position of the institutions and because this

reduced commitment made the colleges reluctant to allocate sufficient resources to

guarantee quality programming.48

19

48W. C. Ringenberg, The Christian College: A History of Protestant Higher Education in America second edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2006), 123.

For example, in 1925 the Yale Daily, Yale’s student run newspaper, led a persistent

campaign against compulsory chapel. These students also circulated a petition among faculty

members to eliminate compulsory chapel. The majority of faculty signed this petition. This

ultimately led to eliminating the chapel requirement for seniors, and shortly thereafter abolishing

the requirement entirely.49 In 1922 student protests at Harvard resulted in the elimination of the

chapel requirement by 1925. Similar events happened at Amherst, Brown, University of

Chicago, Dartmouth, Vassar, Lafayette, Davidson, Millsaps, Ohio Wesleyan, and Gettysburg, all

schools that were founded with a uniquely Christian identity.50

According to Longfield,

The reasons for the abolition of compulsory chapel were many and various, ranging from

an increasingly diverse and recalcitrant student body, to lack of sufficiently large meeting

areas, to scheduling difficulties caused by expanding curricula. In addition to logistical

problems and increasing student opposition; however, was the belief among many devout

administrators and faculty that compulsory worship was not beneficial and was in many

cases detrimental to the cultivation of Christianity.51

20

49 B. Longfield, “’For God, for Country, and for Yale’: Yale, Religion and Higher Education between the World Wars,” The Secularization of the Academy, Eds., G. Marsden and B. Longfield (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1992), 151-58.

50Marsden, The Soul of the American University, 345, 361; Burtchaell, The Dying of the Light, 167-67, 208, 293, 311, 367.

51B. Longfield, “From Evangelicalism to Liberalism: Public Midwestern Universities in Nineteenth-Century America,” The Secularization of the Academy, 52-53.

Christian colleges that want to remain communities of learning and worship must be

diligent in guarding their Rule of Life, especially paying attention to chapel requirements,

required religion curricula, faith integration, and service requirements. This diligence is

especially called for during times of expansion, where the logistical problems of class scheduling

and space limitations make such a Rule of Life difficult to maintain.

Wise Relations with Donors

A third insight that can be drawn from Christian monasticism and applied to CCCU

schools relates to donors. Monastic communities were dependent on wealthy benefactors for

their existence. However, these funds sometimes came with expectations that were at cross

purposes with the monastic community’s Rule of Life.

For example, over time monasteries become sanctuaries for the nobility to protect (and

control) their mothers, daughters, sisters and wives. These female monastic houses became

shelters from the harsh and often violent environment of medieval life. The motto, “aut muras

aut maritas” (“either a convent or a husband”) reflected this value among the wealthy in

medieval Europe.52 Many of these daughters and wives of nobility had no particular desire to

live a cloistered life, and thus resisted the rigidity of monastic Rules of Life. Families would

provide their monastics with a servant to engage in manual behavior on behalf of the monastic,

and exert pressure on the abbot or abbottess to relax the Rule of Life for their particular family

member, often promising financial favors in exchange.

Moreover, with the practice of commenda, monastic houses could be bought and sold,

gained and gifted, between wealthy benefactors as part of the medieval patronage system.

21

52Rapley, the Lord as their Portion, 177.

Monastic houses could find themselves reduced to bargaining chips in elaborate deals between

wealthy family members.

Likewise Christian colleges would be wise to be wary of donors who are not fully

compatible with their Christian identity. According to Ringenberg, it was with the influx of

donor money and new students that marked the decline in many of the Christian colleges already

mentioned. “Neither the new donors nor the new breed of administrators were overly concerned

about the orthodoxy of their faculty,” writes Ringenberg.53

Success Despite the Rule of Life

As monastic communities were increasingly utilized by the aristocracy to provide

education for their family members, increasing numbers of people joined these communities

despite rather than because of their Rule of Life. This has already been alluded to with regard to

canonites who adopted third order vows.

Relating this trend to CCCU schools, it could be that Christian colleges face an

interesting paradox. As they pursue excellence in such areas as academics, the student

experience, and athletics (to name a few), this could unintentionally attract increasing numbers

of potential students to the college who select the college despite its Rule of Life. Currently

many students at CCCU schools select that school because of its intentional Christian identity.

However, as the programs in these schools grow and become competitive with equivalent

programs at other private and state universities, increasing numbers of potential students will

find themselves attracted to these programs without ever considering the ramifications of

attending a college that adopts a particular Rule of Life.

22

53Ringenberg, The Christian College, 63.

Some CCCU schools will embrace this trend as an evangelistic opportunity, a missional

way to introduce students to a Rule of Life that the school feels is transformational. In some

cases, this will be successful, especially if this represents a low percentage of students.

However, caution is warranted here. As this percentage of students grows, backlash will grow

exponentially, leading to flagrant violations of the Rule of Life, cynicism toward the school’s

Christian identity, and organized efforts to relax or eliminate the Rule of Life.

This means Christian colleges who are committed to cultivating an ongoing Christian

identity will need to emphasize their Rule of Life clearly and forthrightly in their admission

recruitment, marketing and advertising. Moreover, careful attention must be paid to the language

used to describe the college experience, avoiding word sets that cast the school’s Christian

uniqueness in the past tense, such as “legacy,” “heritage,” and “foundation.”54 As Ringenberg

notes, such past tense rhetoric can inadvertently create the impression that a school’s Christian

identity and Rule of Life belongs to its past rather than being an essential part of its present.

Conclusion

This study has suggested that the Christian college immerses students into a quasi-

monastic Rule of Life. This Rule of Life envisions the college experience as one of learning in

the context of worship. Envisioning higher education in this way is consistent with the history of

higher education, especially the rise of the medieval university system and history of higher

education until the mid-twentieth century. This study has suggested that as a quasi-monastic

community, the Christian college will face some of the same obstacles and problems that

23

54Ringenberg, The Christian College, 20-21.

characterized monasticism, and by learning from the monastic tradition, adaptive strategies can

be developed to maintain and cultivate a vibrant Christian identity in the face of external and

internal pressures to secularize.

24