{"id":135,"date":"2018-05-12T18:14:38","date_gmt":"2018-05-12T22:14:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.shu.edu\/cheb\/?p=135"},"modified":"2018-05-12T18:14:38","modified_gmt":"2018-05-12T22:14:38","slug":"faith-and-secularisation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.shu.edu\/cheb\/2018\/05\/12\/faith-and-secularisation\/","title":{"rendered":"Faith and Secularisation"},"content":{"rendered":"

Arthur, J. (2006).\u00a0Faith and secularisation in religious colleges and universities<\/em><\/a>. New York: Routledge.<\/p>\n

\"\"Arthur examines the trend for religious colleges and universities to become more \u201cmainstream\u201d in response to modernity and, for Catholic institutions, especially in response to Vatican II.\u00a0<\/em>\u00a0Much of the Catholic response is covered in other readings , but Arthur\u2019s work is informative in placing it in broader comparative context.\u00a0\u00a0 He sees an important part of this context to be a worldwide resurgence of religious belief and \u201cnew openness to issues in religion within higher education\u201d, and concomitant efforts by religiously-affiliated institutions to \u201crenew and refine their identities\u201d since the mid-1990\u2019s (p. 1).\u00a0 It is largely a \u201csequel\u201d to Gallin, 2000 but includes (rather erratically) interspersed histories of Christian, Muslim and Jewish higher education which afford interesting parallels (and some contrasts) to the specific history of Catholic higher education.<\/p>\n

Arthur observes that \u201cthe public universities founded in nineteenth century America, whilst claiming to be non-sectarian, were in practice and ethos, distinctly Protestant\u201d and that \u201cAmerican Catholic universities were largely founded as a reaction against the prevailing Protestantism found in higher education\u201d (p. 17).\u00a0 This is a somewhat different interpretation from the idea that Catholic colleges were founded to provide education for Catholics.<\/p>\n

Secularisation, \u201ca movement away from traditionally accepted religious norms, practices and beliefs\u201d was seen as the major threat to Catholic education until the 1950\u2019s, when many Catholic and other religiously-affiliated colleges and universities began to \u201cmodernize\u201d (p. 22). Arthur notes that Protestant institutions were more likely to embrace modernity, with many (such as Harvard) separating themselves from their religious identity.<\/p>\n

Arthur notes that despite secularization (maybe because of it?), since the 1990\u2019s \u201cgrowing numbers of American students are attending religiously-affiliated universities\u201d and that \u201cthese are growing more quickly than secular institutions of higher education\u201d (p. 22).\u00a0 He also notes the worldwide growth of \u201cfundamentalism\u201d, both generally and in higher education.\u00a0 However, he also notes that some colleges and universities are \u201creligious\u201d in name only, and that even Catholic universities vary widely in terms of their mission statements and adherence to Catholicism.\u00a0 He observes that:<\/p>\n

\u201cWhilst Catholic colleges and universities want to be seen as Catholic there is simply no agreement among them on how they should be Catholic\u201d (p. 35).<\/p>\n

The 2003 USA Conference of Catholic Bishops listed \u201cthe essential elements of Catholic identity\u201d in rather broad terms, noting that \u201cCatholic Mission and Identity is freely chosen\u201d (p. 41), a notable contrast to Ex Corde<\/em>.\u00a0 The guidelines included \u201ccommitment to the poor\u201d (Catholic social justice) and to the pastoral care of students. By comparison, the mission statements of Protestant universities tended to broader and more generally \u201cvalues-centered\u201d (p. 54) while Muslim and Jewish universities tended to be more emphatic \u201cIslamic\u201d and varied respectively.\u00a0 However, Adam suggest a general tendency for Western education to \u201cdrift away\u201d from its Judeo-Christian foundations and to emphasize academic over religious values in order to be \u201cacceptable to the secular public domain\u201d (p. 67).\u00a0 This \u201cpartial secularization\u201d tends to \u201cthe separation of faith from learning and teaching\u201d (p. 106), especially when there is not a deliberate effort to emphasize religious principles.<\/p>\n

Arthur includes chapters on governance and academic freedom, but the most relevant and intriguing is chapter 6, \u201cthe secularization process\u201d.\u00a0 He suggests this has not been deliberate but rather a \u201cgradual erosion\u201d of religious identity and \u201csecularly conformity\u201d in response to five factors:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Lack of adequate funding from the sponsoring religious body and growing dependence on state and other secular funding: \u201cthe temptation of state money in the USA caused many [religious institutions] to depict themselves as secular in order to qualify for these funds\u201d (p. 134).<\/li>\n
  2. Pluralism and diversity within society: \u201cconsequently, religious institutions sought to change their public image\u201d (p. 134)<\/li>\n
  3. A desire for more autonomy (including academic freedom) from external religious authority<\/li>\n
  4. Fewer clerics and more lay persons involved in religiously affiliated institutions (one assumes both faculty and administrators, although this is not specified).<\/li>\n
  5. The desire to \u201cbe accepted by secular establishments\u201d as truly \u201cacademic\u201d (p. 134)<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The chapter provides a detailed list of steps likely to lead to secularization under the headings \u201cMission and Identity\u201d, \u201cleadership and governance\u201d, \u201cthe curriculum\u201d, \u201creligious life and ethos\u201d,\u00a0 and \u201ccommunity: staff appointments and student selection\u201d .\u00a0 Several points stand out:<\/p>\n