Standing Boldly: The Apology (Trembath Lecture Part 2)
DISCLAIMER: This was attempt at being simultaneously, provocative, sincere, but coy. I’m not sure it came off exactly as I intended. But it’s important to note the context of this lecture. I was generously given the opportunity to have a sort of sabbatical during which I could study something in my field related to the Lutheran Confessions. At the time, I was deeply in need of additional time out of the classroom to get my bearings. I was alarmed by the political winds surrounding American evangelicalism, and the anti-intellectualism of my particular church body at the time. I had hoped, since I was a child in sixth grade, to find a way to use the language of Christianity in a way that brought happiness and freedom. I hoped to transform, in some way, the thing from within.
In this lecture, I attempted to use the language and political significance of the Lutheran confessions to inspire other professors within church-related (and particularly Protestant) education to value free thinking, bold reimagining of ideas, and faithfulness to individual conscience. To read this as I intended it at the time, understand that “Christian University” means a free space in which people committed to Jesus’ rejection of money, power and glory (the Jesus portrayed well by Dostoyevsky’s “Grand Inquisitor”). I say that this “Christian University” is the only place for academic freedom because funding and bias infect all institutions that depend on the patronage of those in power.
One need not identify as a member of the “Christian” religion, nor ought an institution of education affiliate with a Christian denomination to make this happen. On the contrary, I have personally ghosted church, and do not plan to affiliate with any organized religious body ever again. Moreover, I have come to believe that church-related education is incapable of reform, and for that reason ought to be humanely dismantled and repurposed. Thus, I stand by the spirit of this lecture, even though my own spiritual language has deconstructed significantly since I first wrote this.
An education that recognizes the intrinsic value of each learner, and refuses to harm their intellectual agency even for the sake of dogma is what I’ve always been after, and what I was after here.
As you read, consider also that the research and contemplation behind this very lecture led me to a rapid untangling from the very constructs of religion that funded the study. I see the delightful irony in this. Donors gave money to have me study something they wanted preserved. In so doing, I experienced a detachment from formal adherence to those documents. I did so with the sense that there wasn’t enough academic freedom in that context to grow. This lecture planted a seed in my own mind that church-related higher education was not compatible with what I call a “Christian University.” And to the extent that the term has been hijacked by money, power, and glory, I suppose it’s time to retire it.
Nonetheless, I could not have found freedom from the world of the church-related academy had it not been for this opportunity to deepen my knowledge of the church-related academy. So, I am grateful for the opportunity to have had at least enough room to explore, at a church-related institution, why I am no longer a fit for such an institution. I am grateful to colleagues who were friendly to me even as I was deconstructing my old perspectives, even as those perspectives buttressed the institution that employed us.
May you be happy and free, and may you find the path less circuitous than I did.
—Jeff Mallinson, September 12, 2022
***
Here, Jeff isn’t saying he’s sorry for what he said in Part 1, rather he’s providing an apologia for his perspective on academic freedom within church related schools and universities. Check out the previous part, at least the first ten minutes, before heading to this part, which is more technical and deals especially with the epistemology of William of Ockham and it’s resonance with Lutheran epistemology later on.