EDITORrnThomas FlemingrnSKNIOR EDI TOR, BOOKSrnChilton Williamson, jr.rnMANAGINC; KDITORrnScott P. RichertrnART DIRKCTORrnAmia Mycek-WodeckirnCONTRIBUTING EDITORSrnHarold O.j. Brown, KatherinernDalton, Samuel Francis,rnGeorge Garrett, Paul Gottfried,rnj.O. Tate, Michael Washburn,rnClyde WilsonrnCORRESPONDING EDITORSrnBill Kauffman, Donald Livingston,rnWilliam Murchison, William Milk,rnAndrei Navrozov, Jacob Neusner,rnSrdja TrifkovicrnEDITORIAL SECRETARYrnLeann DohhsrnPUBLISHERrnThe Rockford InstituternPUBLICATION DIRECTORrnGuy G. ReffettrnCIRCULATION MANAGERrnCindy LinkrnA pLiblication of Tlie Rockford Institute.rnEditorial and Advertising Offices:rn92S North Main Street. RockffJrd, IL 61103.rnEditorial Phone: (815)964-5054.rnAdvertising Phone: (815)964-5813.rnSnbscription Department: P.O. Box 800,rnMount MomsJL 61054. Call 1-800-877-5459.rnU.S.A. Newsstand Distribution by Eastern NewsrnDistributors, Inc., One Media Wav. 12406 Rt. 250rnMilan, Ohio 44848-9705rnCopyright © 1998 by Tlie Rockford Institute.rnAll rights reserved.rnChmnicks (ISSN 0887-5731) is publishedrninontlily for $39.00 (foreign subscriphons add $12rnfor surface delivery, $48 for Air Mail) per year byrnThe Rockford Institute, 928 North Main Street,rnRockford, IL 6I103-706I. Preferred periodicalrnpostage paid at Rockford, IL and additional mailingrnoffices. POSTMASTER: Send address changesrnto Chronicles, P.O. Box 800, Mount Monis,rnIL 61054.rn’Ihe views expressed in Chronicles are thernauthors’ alone and do not necessarily reflectrnthe views of Tlie Rockford Institute or fjf itsrndirectors. Unsolicited manuscripts cannot bernreturned unless accompanied by a self-addressedrnstamped envelope.rnChroniclesrnVol 2^, No. [ J;nui.ir- 1Q99rnPnnltil III tlif 1 liiikd Sl.ilts of XnierniirnPOLEMICS & EXCHANGESrnOn Evangelical EducationrnDouglas Wilson’s article, “Why EvangelicalrnColleges Aren’t,” {Vital Signs,rnSeptember) is provocative but unsubstantiated.rnIt is also quietly sclf-ser’ing,rnfailing to mention his role as a founder ofrnNew St. Andrews College in Moscow,rnIdaho. His assertions about evangelicalrnhigher education ought to be measuredrnagainst the facts of those colleges andrnagainst his own practice.rnMr. Wilson elaborates one centralrnconclusion: Christian colleges today reflectrnrather than confront the dominantrncultirre. His allegation is based on twornundisputed facts: Such colleges teach arncontemporary rather than a “classical”rn17th-century curriculum, and they participaternin the American system of regionalrnaccreditation. He believes Christianrnparents will find such institutionsrndamaging to students. He asserts: “Arngraduate of an evangelical establishmentrnlike Wheaton has a far better chance ofrnreceiving a diploma in trendy leftismrnthan his counterpart down the road atrnLeviathan State U.”rn”Trendy leftism”? Does Mr. Wilsonrnmean the issues of poverty and sufferingrnthat )esus addressed in proclaimingrnthe Kingdom of God? The commitmentrnthat Jesus demonstrated to rebukernracism, hypocrisy, and a cold religiousrnestablishment? Jesus’s attack on materialism?rnIn any case, he does not cite therncurriculum of any institution.rnThe issue of curriculum is central tornMr. Wilson’s argument. He argues thatrnthe modern curriculum, with its subjectmatterrnmajors, replaces the “confessionalrnapproach to higher education.” Herncomments, “When colleges ceased tornpass on an inherited body of knowledgernand began catering to the interests andrndesires of the public, the destruction wasrncomplete.” Mr. Wilson seems to meanrnthat issues such as himian fallenness,rnman’s need for salvation, the atoningrnwork of Christ, and the ministr)’ of thernHoly Spirit ought to influence our understandingrnof humans and culture. I dornnot know an evangelical college wherernthese truths are not kept before studentsrnin classes and in chapel.rnMr. Wilson’s attack on an educationrnsystem based on subject-matter majorsrnsuch as English literature or mathematicsrnprizes the traditional liberal arts butrnignores 200 years of intellectual inquiry.rnIt also dismisses the core of foundationalrngeneral education courses that are requiredrneverywhere. Almost without exception,rnevangelical colleges requirerncourses in biblical and theological study.rnSome mandate a progressive and deeperrnengagement with faith issues, and somernmay require a full major (45 semesterrnhours) of Bible and theology togetherrnwith a subject-matter major.rn”Catering to the public”? If stiidentsrnwere “customers,” “always right,” werncould forget degree requirements. Ourrngoal is to help students grow to intellectual,rnsocial, and spiritual maturity: Seniorsrnshould be different from freshmenrnin these areas. Students fail and are suspendedrnand expelled precisely becausernthey are not simply customers.rnMr. Wilson charges that “the Zeitgeistrn[appears] in raunchy requirements forrnclasses.” While evangelical colleges oftenrnchallenge students with difficult material,rnthey usually do so in a context ofrnguided discussion and critique. Yet Mr.rnWilson’s college offers a colloquium inrnliterature featuring classic “raunchy”rnworks without guidance, instructionalrnsupport, or comment. Among them arernBoccaccio’s Decameron, the CanterburyrnTales, Fielding’s Tom Jones, Sterne’s TristramrnShandy, Byron’s Don ]uan, Faulkner’srnThe Sound and the Fury, and C.S.rnLewis’s Till We Have Faces. One accidentalrncircumcision, two forced castrations,rnand a load of seduction and unchastit}’,rnone might note.rnWliat “public” does New St. Andrewsrncater to? Its curriculum will familiarizernstudents with a great deal of philosophy,rntheology, and culture up to 1870. Itsrnsubsequent selectivity omits any Americanrnliterature later than Faulkner, anyrnwoman author after George Eliot, anyrnlaboratory science. One can masterrnLatin and Greek, Calvin’s Institutes,rnDante and Milton, and return to an agernwhen young white males studied deadrnwhite males.rnFinally, Mr. Wilson equates regionalrnaccreditation with a state imprimatur. Asrnhe puts it, “Evangelical colleges havernagreed to burn their incense to the emperor,rnand now regularly come beforernsecular accrediting agencies and boards,rnhat in hand. Tlease, sir, may we teachrn4/CHRONICLESrnrnrn