Every Christian university requires at least one English composition, writing, and/or literature class. Thus, one would think that someone reviewing those course descriptions would find considerable evidence demonstrating how Christianity relates to these basic courses. You would be wrong.
We recently analyzed the required gen ed course descriptions at all Protestant and Catholic universities that require at least one Christian course (332).1 Only thirteen English classes among the 332 Christian universities use any Christian language in their course description for these courses. Why is that?
First, the courses aim low. Although learning to express oneself in writing and analyzing English literature are important skills, they are hardly a sign of moral or Christian excellence. I would hypothesize that Stalin, Mao, and Hitler likely used decent grammar. A composition course is hardly a liberating or humanizing art by itself. One would think Christians would strive for something a little higher. For instance, what does loving, humble, and self-controlled writing that furthers God’s kingdom look like? How do we steward written words?
Yet, course descriptions for these classes look the same at 96% of Christian institutions as they would for secular universities. Admittedly, course descriptions only can tell us so much about what is formally within the scope of the course. Yet, they do tell us something about what the authors prioritize. The failure of Christian English composition courses is demonstrated by the fact that most Christian faculty do not know how to compose Christian course descriptions. We can learn how to change this practice from the exceptions.
What Can We Learn from the Exceptions?
The course descriptions of the thirteen institutional exceptions to the trend focus on four themes. First, a few mentioned that the course will contain Christian content. One course description reads, “This course examines works by authors who incorporate representations of the person and work of Jesus Christ in their writings.” Others mention including portions of the Bible in the class. For example, Grove City College mentions that its HUMA 202 course “explores the nature of God and humanity, the nature of good and evil, the meaning of moral choice, the purpose of life, and the meaning of salvation.” The one Catholic university that was an exception mentions reading Augustine and Dante. Certainly, Christian content is important, but literature or essay topics do not always involve clear Christian content. Other elements are needed.
Second, some simply discuss making associations with the Bible or Christianity. For example, one course description notes that it will draw “connections among biblical studies, psychology, literature, and other areas of the humanities.” Similarly, another aims to show “the debt the Western literary tradition owes to the ancient, pre-Christian world.” Drawing connections is an important skill, but I would consider that skill a basic one.
Third, and a higher skill for Christ-animated learning, some descriptions mention an “emphasis on critical reading and evaluation of literary texts from a Christian perspective” or helping students “dialogue from a Christian worldview” about the texts. These course descriptions indicate that the class aims to engage in higher-level thinking. For example, Calvin University’s ENGL 101 points out, “In the process of writing these essays, students consider language as a means of discovering truth about God, the world, and themselves, and they explore its potential to communicate truth and, thereby, to transform culture.” I wish every first-year English composition or literature class took students to these intellectual heights.
Finally, we only found two institutions that incorporate the application of ethics or virtues to the writing process in their course description. Belhaven University notes in its ENG 101 course “Emphasis on the Christian responsibility to use language effectively and ethically.” One would think this emphasis should be obvious to anyone who has studied how the Bible talks about the use of the tongue, but it is not something one finds in course descriptions.
If there is an exemplary course description that contains both of the last two advanced themes, it is from George Fox University (which also has exemplary course descriptions for many of its other general education courses). Here is the description for the required course, LITR 111 Faith and Story:
How do stories redeem the past and shape the future? What stories might make sense of your past and shape your future? “Faith and Story” introduces students to literature as a method of human inquiry, with particular attention to the importance of carefully reading texts from multiple genres, periods, cultures and voices, examining narrative and form through a Christian lens, and cultivating the virtues of imagination and empathy. Topics and texts vary by section.
As you should notice from the last sentence, it emphasizes both learning the skill of reading and analysis from a Christian perspective and acquiring particular types of virtues helpful in this process. I wish all course descriptions for English general education requirements at Christian institutions were this sophisticated. Unfortunately, they are not. Overall, only 4% of Christian universities demonstrate they are approaching general education in this subject area Christianly.
This finding gives one the impression that most Christian general education takes the same Christ-added approach that Christian co-curricular leaders sometimes take. Adding chapel and Bible courses hardly means the whole education one offers is animated by Christ and Christianity. These findings make me realize we need to share positive models of how to engage in more advanced forms of Christ-animated general education. Thus, I would love to hear from professors who teach English general education requirements about how you attempt to teach such courses Christianly (even if it is not in your course description). Send us a blog post that can help others.
The n in this study certainly gives weight to your assessments. It is interesting that an exemplary course might also be at a Christian college struggling with more fundamental matters (some rather public) about its Christian identity. However, as for these classes and descriptions, I hope all heads of these departments read this post.
I plan to present some good news on this very topic at the Baylor Symposium on Faith and Culture this October 2024. I hope you are able to attend, Perry! Houston Christian University and its English professors have a long history of integrating faith in the classroom, and we are accomplishing some extraordinary new work in this area through collaborative curriculum revision. A course is so much more than its description in the university catalog, and sometimes it is hard to see from the outside what can be evident from inside the classroom. I am sure there are other like-minded Christian colleges and universities who cultivate Christ-animated learning in their English classes. It’s almost impossible not to do this when Christian professors are teaching Augustine, Dante, Shakespeare, Donne, Herbert, Milton, Dostoevsky, Chesterton, Lewis, Tolkien, Sayers, MLK Jr., O’Connor, Berry, contemporary Christian authors, etc. In HCU’s revised curriculum, we also plan to include some essays from The Christian Scholar’s Review, some published by our own faculty. I’m happy to share more information, but the evidence of Christ-animated learning will be in what our students experience and recall, not in the language of transfer-friendly course descriptions.
Emily, that’s wonderful to hear. I look forward to receiving some blog posts describing your courses!
I know this has been your thing recently to examine course descriptions for Christian language, but I don’t think these course descriptions are as telling as you suggest they are. You say they “tell us something about what the authors prioritize.” However, the authors may not have even been faculty. Course descriptions, particularly of common core courses, are frequently written by registrars or department administrators. The “priority” may have been word count. It may have been accreditation preferences. It may.have been standard disciplinary boilerplate. But that doesn’t mean the faculty are looking to those descriptions to determine/design the content of their courses. I can tell you, for sure, that ALL the courses at Wheaton College have a strong faith component. It is one of the four promotable strengths on which all teaching and course design is done. Although it would be a far more extensive project, determining how much theological/Christian distinction is in these courses would need to be done at the syllabus level in order to make any substantive conclusions about what experience students are having. I would suggest that few, if any, of our current writing professors had a hand in writing the current catalog description, and I doubt that many, if any, use the catalog description as a determining factor in developing learning outcomes for their courses. Catalogs are, largely, bureaucratic documents designed for many reasons having little to do with course design. They are not pedagogical guides.
I wouldn’t want to see administrators fixing up catalog descriptions as if that were some kind of substantive intervention, when the real work, as you know, is happening far beyond the catalog.
Brian, I agree with much of what you say, but I would suggest that we need to consider one other audience. Students also read and use the course descriptions–a point you do not mention. If we fail demonstrate evidence of Christ-animating learning in our course descriptions, we miss an opportunity to demonstrate how we frame our courses Christianly. In my interviews with Christian college students across the nation I find that this skill of Christian framing is a major one that they lack. I would hope that we would design our course descriptions to serve and educate students.
Eh. I find very few students who seem to have much connection to catalog course descriptions, and fewer every day. They mostly put their schedules together with the help of professional academic advisors, and, to a lesser extent, based on the title of the course. I don’t think courses like the First Year Writing get a very strong look by the students, and I don’t think these catalog descriptions really do anything in terms of forming student experience. I’m not against writing more Christo-centric descriptions, although I will say that in a few cases, in my discipline of anthropology, I have to think about audiences of secular PhD granting institutions who will look at a course around, say, Social Theory at a college like Wheaton with some skepticism, wondering if we’re exposing them to a robust account of theory. If I write the course description in a way that speaks deeply of the theological engagement (which I very much provide) it could disadvantage my students seeking admission to top programs.
Overall, I think your project is fine. And calling us to think about course descriptions is fine. But a “scandal?” That seems dramatic.
Brian, you may be right about the students. Still, I think they have pedagogical and marketing importance. In fact, I find it odd that as an anthropologist you want to downplay the importance of institutional artifacts such as course descriptions. They do mean something, and I think they mean more than you’re willing to admit. If I’m a parent looking at Christian gen ed course descriptions, I would ask some hard questions about why I’m paying extra money for what looks like the same education my child would get at state U (plus some Bible courses, chapel, and extra student life rules).
Also, your point about secularizing your course description sadly proves my point I have made in various posts about how a concern for pleasing non-Christians is often the source of our secularization (https://christianscholars.com/the-major-threat-to-christ-animated-learning-confusion-about-hospitality-to-non-christians-at-christian-universities/). That being said, as a Graduate Program Director, I have never looked at course descriptions when evaluating a potential candidate’ transcript (course titles yes). I think you’re vastly overplaying the importance of course descriptions for graduate program admissions.
As for whether what I found is a scandal, that likely depends upon whether you are the parent paying the tuition for a supposedly Christian education or the professor at the Christian university who does not want to change your course descriptions.
It is very true that registrars have a great deal of control over course descriptions. Over the years, in the courses I’ve tried to create catalog descriptions of, the registrar’s office has always made us shorten them—sometimes very short. My practice has generally been, therefore, to add more to that course description in my specific syllabus, usually emphasizing a faith component.
I also agree that students often do not see or care to see course descriptions before registering for classes and that their course schedules are often crafted for them by academic advising coaches.
I don’t think it is always accurate to blame the department faculty for not emphasizing how their English first year/required gen ed course catalog description integrates faith.
Jennifer, your comment has got me thinking. I don’t know if I have ever seen any thinking about what it would mean to integrate faith and learning in the registrar’s office. Now that would be a blog post I’d like to see.
Dr. Glanzer. I enjoyed your recent book that evaluates the curriculum of Chrisitian colleges, and I appreciate these online analyses. I hope they affect the leadership of the colleges. As it relates to this post, I am grateful for the work of the George Fox University professors that helped me integrate my newly found faith in Christ with my academic writings.
I just want to say that the language of Christian faith permeates the way my English department presents what we do and what we hope students will learn – from the general description that introduces our department in the college catalogue to the goals and outcomes on our syllabi, but it isn’t necessarily in our course descriptions. They tend to be more focused on the practical differences (period, genre, etc.) that distinguish one course from another and how each course fills academic requirements. I think the assumption is that each course is part of the same larger vision and that we don’t need to elucidate how that vision differs from course to course.
Kristin, I’m glad to hear about the way Christian faith permeates the courses you teach. If you would ever like to write a blog post about how it does that, I’d love to receive it.