Most Prestigous Christian Colleges

<p>I would say that there's about a 95% probability that when a person asks about a "Christian college," what they mean is an Evangelical Protestant school like Wheaton, Houghton, Biola, Liberty, etc. I don't think anybody would even ask the question if they meant to include schools like Notre Dame.</p>

<p>Thomas Aquinas College
Christendom College
University of Dallas</p>

<p>"If you want a big school then Liberty would be a good pick."</p>

<p>From the Liberty website's description of its Biology major: "The Liberty University Biology & Chemistry Department trains students to represent Christ with academic excellence in the fields of medicine, scientific research and teaching."</p>

<p>This is not higher education. This is selective training that stops when it bumps into predetermined limits on "truth." IMO, sending an 18-year-old off to Liberty, when they think they're getting a higher education that the rest of the world will respect, is unconscionable. As a Christian, I live in the real world every day, with Christians and non-Christians, among those who live lifestyles similar to mine and those whose lifestyles reflect different values. My faith is not diminished by my participation in the secular world, and my willingness to discover new truths is not constrained by my faith. The same can't be said by students at Liberty.</p>

<p>As I posted earlier, a kid at my D's school, one of her best friends, SAT of 2360, going to Liberty. He has confided he's not sure. I don't know what to say to him...I'm not saying anything. All or most of my D's friends are going to "Christian" colleges.</p>

<p>gadad, why are "faith" and "truth" so mutually exclusive for you (e.g., "my willingness to discover new truths is not constrained by my faith")? Asked a bit differently, as a Christian, do you not have faith that the teachings of the Scripture are "true", or is faith in such matters to be applied selectively? I'm not meaning to be attacking, but you seem to lean toward the secular. I'm aware of the tenets of science, and we each must reconcile was is "true", so I'm curious how you handle it.</p>

<p>"Prestigious Christian college" is an oxymoron.</p>

<p>Generally speaking, I agree, but I do know someone who went to Wheaton College who is now at Vanderbilt Law School, so presumably they thought it was a decent education there.</p>

<p>I'm not saying you can't get a decent education at Wheaton, Liberty or the like, but the question was about "prestigous" and it just ain't gonna be! :)</p>

<p>Give it some time ... the pendulum always swings both ways in this country.</p>

<p>Razordad - Here's an example of the concern that I have about fundamentalist "educational" institutions. It's a hot-button example, but it comes to mind because it's currently in the news.</p>

<p>The Supreme Court of California has just ruled the state's ban on gay marriage unconstitutional. A college student ought to be capable of engaging in a mature process of critical thought in coming to a position on an issue such as this, and a process that's over before it begins (". . . the Bible says X, so I maintain Y") is not mature critical thought. To really assess this issue intelligently, one has to be able to weigh recent research on whether sexual orientation is a matter of choice or a matter of genetic identity. Regardless of the conclusion to which a student arrives, that conclusion must be based on an understanding of the evidence currently available, not the assumptions of Biblical authors with limited information at their disposal. Then students need to be able to discuss the extent of the government's legitimate interest in limiting private behavior and whether it is necessarily wrong to limit behavior when doing so could diminish the rights of persons of particular identities. This is an issue of social and political philosophy, not religion. Again, the outcome a student reaches in the process isn't the issue; the key is that a student learns a process that goes beyond merely "representing Christ" as Liberty says. For me, a critical evaluation of Scripture is a necessary matter of good stewardship of the intelligence that was given to each of us.</p>

<p>I don't believe that a student attending a school that represents a fundamentalist version of Christianity (or any other religion) is equipped in the least to have a reasonable opinion on an issue such as the California Supreme Court's ruling. But typically, a student at such a school is taught to have an opinion - the only opinion that the school will permit the student to espouse - and the student is taught intolerance for any viewpoint that does not promote that opinion. That strikes me not only as false advertising to the student who believes that he's receiving an "education"; it strikes me as something that has the potential to cause and perpetuate a significant amount of evil in the world. I have to assume as many do, fairly or unfairly, that such a student's analytical process on most societal issues is likely to be skewed and unexamined. I also assume that many people, when evaluating applicants for positions of leadership, feel great cause for concern when they are considering the application of a graduate of a fundamentalist school.</p>

<p>gadad,</p>

<p>You said: "I also assume that many people, when evaluating applicants for positions of leadership, feel great cause for concern when they are considering the application of a graduate of a fundamentalist school."</p>

<p>MIT, Columbia, USC and Cornell didn't have problems accepting me after coming out of an evangelical (though not fundamentalist) university. In fact, the general assumption was "Now here's someone we can trust to be moral and upstanding in a world full of crooks". Additionally, FRIENDS of mine (this is an actual list of friends from MY YEAR) from the same Christian University were accepted to:</p>

<p>Harvard, Yale, MIT, USC, UCLA, Vanderbilt, University of Washington, UC Irvine, MIT, Columbia, Cornell, Princeton, Rhode Island School of Design, UC Davis, University of Arizona, UC San Diego, UC Berkeley, Oxford, Cambridge and University of Virginia. Those are just my FRIENDS from the same year that I know of, so I can assure you that the prejudice you have in your mind regarding the quality of an evangelical education (at least one from Biola University) is far from universal. </p>

<p>Additionally, your reasoning that a student will reason "the Bible says X, so I maintain Y" is a flawed for a multitude of reasons.</p>

<p>1) Numerous interpretations of biblical theology exist. Just the simple task in finding biblical truth is an exercise in critical thinking unto itself. So the idea that a theologically based education necessarily leads to a homogeneous opinion set is patently false, and at best pure hyperbole. I think anyone familiar with the slew of "interpretations" that abound within our culture alone (despite most of them being the ridiculous opinions of the grossly unqualified) can attest to this obvious fact. </p>

<p>2) You conveniently choose to list an example that, to most people's eyes, puts Christianity in a poor light. A nice tactic, but this isn't about education qua education. This is simply a philosophical question and, as a philosopher, I can tell you that ANY ethical decision is almost always predetermined based on the a prior assumptions you bring to the table qua your metaphysical and epistemic assumptions. Ethics is simply a function of well thought out philosophical foundations. The conclusions you have made about the world around you will inform your decisions about ethics. Is there a God or are we random accidents? Can we know things? If so, which things and how? Can we even make choices? If we can, which ones? Can we be held accountable for those choices? How do I best interpret the scientific studies I've seen? Through the eyes of someone who believes we can know things and there is a God or through the eyes of someoen who believes there is MAYBE a God but we definitely have no free will etc. etc. etc. </p>

<p>In fact, the answer to any moral question (being answered by one with respect for logic and consistency anyways) reduces to:</p>

<p>"I believe X to be the proper guiding moral force and X says to believe Y, therefor I believe Y"</p>

<p>At least, given that the assumptions that are guiding your syllogism are true. I think though, that perhaps you have fallen prey to the very narrow mindedness and assumptory line of thought that you claim is a product of "fundamentalist" teaching. </p>

<p>In fact, the only coherent ethical system that have EVER existed without being reduced to ashes are those based on theology. Otherwise, ethical posits all quickly become happenstance and reduce themselves to pretty lies we tell ourselves to feel nice. That isn't opinion - it's philosophical fact. To be fair, the atheist would simply say "God is a convenient answer to a difficult quandary" and some might agree. I, of course, do not.</p>

<p>3) 95% of education is free from moral dilemma and is about infusing people with knowledges or the tools to create and gain insight into new knowledge. There is no ethical quandary in a quadratic equation or contribution margin or eukaryotic cells. It is what is DONE with this knowledge that stirs controversy and the diversity of opinion that a theologically based education brings to the table is a good thing. </p>

<p>4) "Theological Indoctrination" is no different than the "Philosophical Naturalist/Postmodern/Liberal" indoctrination that takes place in academia today. This causes a students "analytical process on most societal issues to be skewed and unexamined" to quote you. </p>

<p>If your poorly thought out diatribe is an example of "secular dominance over theological education" then I'd wager to say Harvard is about to get knocked down a peg or two.</p>

<p>To further drive my point home this issue is being debated online at Biola right now. The thread is about 100 posts long at this point but just quoting the first 10 people to respond demonstrate the diversity of thought that exists on the EXACT issue brought up by gadad (CA SUPREME COURT OVERTURNING OF BAN ON HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE). This CLEARLY demonstrates the narrowmindedness that is actually found in secular circles regarding Christian education and rests as undeniable evidence that his assumptions are completely wrong. In fact, I would wager that the quality of thought and the civility within the conversation itself would rival any similar discussion at any university in the country - where university specific online forums either don't exist or turn into nothing but a slew of accusations an insults. </p>

<p>The arguments get much more complex as the conversation develops and an even greater diversity of opinions begin to come forth but space limits me to the first 10 posters, who's names I've edited to protect their identities. The point is that a diversity of opinions CLEARLY exist within a quality education. I can't speak for other Christian Universities but obviously Biola students range from the typical stereotype (the first poster) to something very different indeed. </p>

<p>It's time to rethink your prejudiced thoughts (ALL CHRISTIANS THINK ALIKE!!!) and give some of the top evangelical institutions the credit for diversity of thought that they deserve. The ONLY unifying factor at Biola is a commitment to Christ, orthodoxy and a love for Jesus. The rest of it is as diverse as the world itself and we're pretty happy about that. I suspect it is the same way at many of our sister institutions</p>

<p>Here is the thread:</p>

<hr>

<p>Poster 1</p>

<p>It seems that much of the recent conflict on campus over diversity and the Jesus Mural is a result of the infiltration of liberalism on Biola's campus. Not only is it rotting our culture as shown by the CA court's decision on gay marriage, see thoughts below, it is rotting the Christian community from the inside out.</p>

<p>The spirit of the age, pattern of the world, the world spirit of liberalism is a complete religious world view that stands in total antithesis to an orthodox/biblical Christian world view. It demands accomodation and compromise by Christians while giving up nothing. It denies the Lordship of Christ and the exclusiviity of Jesus as Savior. Jesus is reduced to an example of faith to aspire to not the object of faith that necessitates obedience to God's Commandments. It ejects God as the Lawgiver and places man at the center of the moral universe. Christians who have compromised their faith to liberalism end up supporting and help propagate what God calls evil on our culture and within our churches, helping spread lawlessness: the opposition to God's Word and His Holy Commandments and the denial of His Holy Character. Titus 1:16</p>

<p>I think the article below is a strong and right reaction to what happened. Particularly the reference to Romans 13.</p>

<p>Jesus is Lord and Savior. Quit denying Him by your politics of lawlessness that propagates evil. Liberal judges are assaulting Christian values and are put there but liberals like Obama and Hillary who tear down what God says is good and renames it evil and takes what God calls evil and renames it good. </p>

<p>Professor Responds to Supreme Court Overruling of Prop. 22
Un-Natural Law: The California Supreme Court Overrules Proposition 22</p>

<p>By Kevin Alan Lewis, Assistant Professor of Theology and Law, Biola University</p>

<p>May 15, 2008</p>

<p>By an egregious act of judicial activism, the California Supreme
Court, by a 4-3 decision, has overruled Proposition 22, the Defense of
Marriage Act. The Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 2000 by 61.4% of
voters, explicitly amended the California Family Code to limit
marriage in California to one man and one woman.</p>

<p>The legal result of the court's decision is that California will begin
to permit legally recognized homosexual marriages in 30 days, unless
the court grants a stay on its decision. In November, Californians
will likely vote on the Marriage Amendment Initiative, which, if
passed, would in substance make the language of the Defense of
Marriage Act a part of the state constitution. This would effectively
prevent the court from tinkering with the will of the people on the
matter. However, given the sad state of legal reasoning found in the
current decision, I would not be surprised if the California Supremes'
next feat of judicial prestidigitation was to declare the constitution
itself unconstitutional.</p>

<p>This California decision, if implemented, will quickly affect every
state in the union. The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S.
Constitution will likely require each state to acknowledge homosexual
marriages contracted in California as legitimate marriages and grant
each homosexual "couple" the same rights and privileges as
heterosexual couples.</p>

<p>This current ruling, however, should not surprise anyone. The
Christian law and public policy community has seen this judicial
tsunami coming for over two decades (See Bowers, Romer, Lawrence, et
al.). The homosexual lobby has been relentless and united in its
crusade against Christian ethics and the traditional family. And if
the Christian community fails to act quickly and effectively, this
decision will be only one of many constitutional train wrecks to come
in the near future. (Q): What's coming next if we do not get busy?
(A): Hate speech laws to silence those who disagree with the left's
agenda.</p>

<p>Problematic Legal Reasoning
So what's legally wrong with the decision? The dissenting opinion by
Justice Baxter nicely summarizes the problems with the majority
opinion. In it, he states a number of problems with the court's
ruling:</p>

<p>"In reaching this decision, I believe, the majority violates the
separation of powers, and thereby commits profound error."</p>

<p>"Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the
majority's startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of
marriage </p>

<p>What does the originator of this thread want to do with his/her degree? Where does that person want to ply their trade? If it’s going to be with others who they deem as Christians (probably protestant/baptist/fundamentalist), then they should go to a Christian college. If they are going to be working in fields such as the sciences or in more urban areas, then that education may hurt them. </p>

<p>I’m assuming Catholic institutions (Jesuit or not) are not part of their choices. There’s still a strong divide between Catholics and Protestants when it comes to schools and education. Pretty uncommon for a Catholic high school grad to go to Liberty or someone from a fundamentalist high school wanting to go to Boston College. Just saying.</p>

<p>I, for one, have never heard of Biola (but have heard of Wheaton) and would never hire anyone from Liberty U. But I think most Christian colleges would be fine for most jobs, again, depending on their career path.</p>

<p>To toss another little-known school into the mix: North Park University in Chicago (right in the heart of the city if that’s what you’re looking for). Small, affiliated with the Evangelical Covenant Church (Swedish roots). We know several young people who have gone there who are pursuing very good (non-church) careers and are not, by any stretch, fundamentalists - but are active church-going Christians.</p>