Growth: The Journal of the Association for Christians in Student Development Volume 4 Number 4 Service Learning as Student Affairs Article 4 Practice 2004 Intellectual Humility and the Art of Disagreement at the Christian College James S. Spiegel Taylor University Follow this and additional works at: https://pillars.taylor.edu/acsd_growth Part of the Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Commons, Educational Leadership Commons, Higher Education Commons, Higher Education Administration Commons, and the Teacher Education and Professional Development Commons Recommended Citation Spiegel, James S. (2004) "Intellectual Humility and the Art of Disagreement at the Christian College," Growth: The Journal of the Association for Christians in Student Development: Vol. 4 : No. 4 , Article 4. Available at: https://pillars.taylor.edu/acsd_growth/vol4/iss4/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Association of Christians in Student Development at Pillars at Taylor University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Growth: The Journal of the Association for Christians in Student Development by an authorized editor of Pillars at Taylor University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Intellectual Humility and the Art of Disagreement at the Christian College byJamesS. Spiegel, Ph.D. Abstract Education at a Christian collegeproperlyfeatures both honest inquiry and unwavering allegiance to coretheological standards, such as thoseembodiedin the classical creeds. This combination ofcommitments can create tension for the Christian educator, as insistence upon doctrinal allegiancecan inadvertently reinforce dogmaticattitudes so common amonglate adolescents. In this paper I discuss the virtue of intellectualhumility and its importancefor combatingstudent dogmatism in an atmosphere ofsteadfest Christian commitment. Afterdistinguishing between theological essentials and disputable matters, I discuss philosophical and theological grounds for beingintellectually humble. And I illustrateways in whichfacultyand staff mayintentionallymodel this virtue for students. Introduction It is ironic that dogmatismis common among college students. Presumably, young peoplepursuehigher educationin order to explore newideas, not just to reinforce previously held beliefs. But late adolescence is a stageof life typically characterized by personal crises of various kinds, particularlyin the areaofworldview and ultimate lifecommitments. A certainobstinacy of beliefcan bea formof self-defense against challenges to one'sviews. What results for somestudents is a stubborn clingingto certain beliefs, even in contradictionto plain evidence. While perhaps developmentally normal, this tendencycan be aggravating to college facultyand staffas wellas to the students' peers. On Christian college campuses the challenge of dogmatism is aggravated by the Christian community's concernto guard theological orthodoxyand, sometimes, more narrowly, the specific doctrinal and behavioral expectations of the school. Thus, as Christian educators, wesometimes find our mostbasic faith commitments potentially undermining the wholepoint of education, viz. to changeone'sbeliefs and conduct for the better. What is the solution? In what follows I willdiscuss the mostimportant antidote to dogmatism—the virtue of intellectual humility. And I will showthe relevance of this virtue for practicingthe art of disagreement in an educationalcontext that prizes unified commitment to coretheological beliefs. James S. Spiegel isProfessor ofPhilosophy and Religion at Taylor University. Hehasa Ph.D. in PhilosophyfromMichigan State University (1993), and an M.A. in Philosophyfrom the University ofSouthern Mississippi (1988). 18 Growth,Spring 2004 Service Learning as Student Affairs Practice The Christian College and Theological Commitment In hisclassic The Ideaofa Christian College Art Holmes proposes that the aim of Christian higher education isto produce a certain kindof person, rather than simply to endowa student with a discrete set of skills,as in vocational training (Holmes, 1987). The proper aim for thestudentin a Christian educational community, then, is transformation in the deepest sense, fortification of the individual's soul. Given the depths ofsuch intended change, then, it isnowonder thatstudents areoften resistant. Even students whoconfess an open mind and willingness to explore newideas can be narrow-minded and intractable in their actual beliefcommitments. Psychologist James Marcia hasproposed a model of identity formation in adolescence that may behelpfully applied here (Marcia, 1966). He uses the term "foreclosure" to describe commitment in theabsence ofgenuine exploration. Applied more specifically to college students, we might say thata student is"foreclosed" who maintains a strong commitment to a setofbeliefs without doing anyexploration. In an academic environmentthat exalts the sorts of educationalideals described by Holmes,the foreclosed studentisespecially tragic. However, on the Christiancollege campus, where theological verities arecherished andperhaps guarded very closely, such refusal to genuinely open oneself tonew ideas might beinadvertently reinforced. Some Christian educators see thisaserring on thesafe side, asit isbetter for students to beforeclosed in biblical truth than potentially to beledaway from it altogether in the process of academic exploration. Perhaps it isbetter to erron thesafe side, but,ofcourse, it is bestnot to err at all.So the question isthis: Is there anyway to keep students secure in their most basic faith commitmentswhileat the sametime effectively guiding them in serious exploration in theworld of ideas? As Christian educators, howcanwe maximize the likelihood that our students willkeep the faith in spite of theirexposure to various false beliefs, indeedeven thosethat aredownrightinimicalto a Christian worldview? I have twopoints to make in response to this important question. First, it should be emphasized that there is noguarantee that any student will maintain hertheological commitments, whether or not she isexposed to false teachings in thecourse of her educational career. The brutal truth is that we live in a fallen world and, more proximately, in a degenerating culture thatcontinually assaults us allwith insidious ideas andwarped values, particularly via major media. Unless a person intends to retreat to a monkish life completely removed from Western civilization (ifthatwere possible), she isdestined to be regularly exposed to lies—attractive lies thatare alluring even to Christians because they sometimes closely resemble thetruth.So preventing students from being exposed to false ideas isa hopeless cause. Even worse, it isa strategy that sets upyoung Christians for a fall. Like sending soldiers out to battlewithoutanyweapons or,just as tragically, giving orders to troops withoutany knowledge ofthe enemy, wecannot expect young Christians to persevere in thetruth without being trained to recognize some of thisworld s perennial lies. This leads to mysecond point,bestexplained using a different metaphor. Exposure to false belief systems in an educational context ofChristian commitment actually serves to secure students in the truth, preventing ultimate apostasy. Thesituation is analogous to immunizations against disease. There is always a remote chance that giving a child a tetanus vaccination, for example, will cause severe health problems, but Growth,Spring 2004 19 it isstill in the child'sbestinterest to do so because of the greater likelihood that she would catchthe disease were shenot vaccinated. Similarly, it isbetterto immunize the college student against the false teachings of the Marxes, Nietzsches, and Freuds of this world throughcritical analysis of their ideas than to allow the studentto go into the worldwithout any meansof defense against their arguments. This is one of the reasons I am personallyand professionally devoted to the liberal arts model of Christian education. Although inherently risky in somerespects (whateducational endeavors are not?), the likelyoutcomes are more than worth the risks incurred. Theapostle Paularticulated this vision of worldview analysis when he declared "We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself upagainst the knowledge of God, and wetake captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ" (2 Cor. 10:5). Suchshouldbe the vision of Christianeducators: to prepare students for this twofold task, at once critical and constructive, ofdemolishing opposing worldviews and building a formidable Christian worldview. Nowthe pointof this foray into an apologetic forChristian liberal arts education was to emphasize that carefulguardianshipof the verities of the Christian faith does notimply—indeed it precludes—prevention ofstudent inquiry into foreign worldviews. Proper exposure to the full range of ideas assists ratherthan handicaps Christian students in their appreciation ofthe rigor and beauty oftheirtheological heritage. Thechallenge forleaders of theologically conservative schools, of course, is to balance this bold attitude ofinquiry with their unwavering commitment to thetheological standards that define them institutionally. Forexactly howsuchdoctrinal standards arearticulated and howallegiance is regulated is likely to have an impacton students' willingness to doserious academic exploration. Let's face it. There isa profound tension here. On theonehand we tell students "honestly explore all you want," then we say, in oneway or another, "but