A Humanist-Atheist Chaplain at Harvard?
Here is the original post I made about the news item (see below). A person where I posted this material asked questions (the indentations marked with “J____”). My responses follow.
I was reminded again this week that background to a situation should superintend journalistic reporting on a matter. Many may have read or read about the NYTs Harvard chaplain story circulating late this past week. Jordan Gandhi has done us a great service by providing the background to the situation from Harvard Christian Alumni; I hope all will read it.
The context to any story necessitates the hard work of careful research. Reposting tweets, memes, articles, and stories that trumpet one perspective without thoughtful engagement with other sources is wrong. Yes, we should display our differences but without casting aspersions. And, no, this does not mean some soft middle ground on which we sing Kumbaya.
Community is sustained by variant perspectives. I echo the call again for “viewpoint diversity” from the Heterodox Academy (where I am a member). But what we can be is honest with each other, careful in our verbiage, patient in our thinking, and not posting on social media just what makes our point. I am again reminded of and recommitting myself to the practice of care in social media communication.
[Addendum. I will be using this situation and these articles as an assignment I will create for my “Argumentative Writing” course that I teach at public university here in Indianapolis.]
J__________Mark, from the Christian perspective, how do you deal with the conflict between the ecumenical approach, and the contrary portions of Scripture?
I’m referring to things like Paul advising believers not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers, or the warnings of Paul and Peter and John against false teachers.
J_________, thank you for your good question! The 2 Corinthians 6 separation passage has everything to do with partnership: marriage and business are two obvious commitments. The injunction is a clear connection to First Testament teaching: do not worship other gods (Deut 4.17-19) and sustain a worldview distinctiveness from the surrounding nations (Lev 18:1-5).
Nothing has changed from one testament to the other: YHWH demands obeisance to His Truth for His people. Heresy ensues (your good question about false teaching) when we break from declarative Scriptural teaching, bowing the knee instead to some other ruler (e.g. Exodus where the English words for “serve” and “worship” are the same in Hebrew, appearing over 100 times in the book; the only choice is binary between YHWH and pharaoh.)
In the case of Harvard, we have a public university – broken from its biblical moorings since at least the 19th century – whose mission is very different from any kind of “Christian” commitment. So, within the public sphere, the Harvard Christian Alumni well stated the specific working relationship. Like any kind of community – Ricochet included – we find alliances within a peaceful pluralism.
I work at a public university. I commit to teach my classes as a professor in my discipline. My vocational work does not cross the line of heresy, since I am working in the public sphere. If a church, however, hires a humanist to be their chaplain, pastor, or counselor that organization can no longer be called a “church” since the connection to Christ as the bridegroom is sacrosanct (Eph 5:25-33); the difference between being “in the world but not of it.” I hope I have satisfactorily answered your question. 🙂
J___________: Thanks, Mark. That is a good response.
I would counter with a couple of concerns. Might it be the pluralist approach that you advocate which led to Harvard breaking from its original Biblical moorings? If the Biblical view is correct, doesn’t Romans 1 indicate that rejection of the Biblical view is going to lead inevitably to moral collapse?
The second concern is where a Christian should draw the line. We are supposed to be in the world but not of the world, so complete separation is not in accordance with the faith, I think. But it does teach that the world is our enemy, and those in the world are our enemies, doesn’t it? They are our mission field, and we are commanded to love them, but we are not to make alliances with them. I think that I’ve heard John MacArthur suggest that the place to draw the line is in religious matters. So you can do business with an unbeliever, but you shouldn’t engage in religious activities with them. If correct, this undermines the support that the Harvard Christian Alumni expressed for the atheist chaplain, doesn’t it?
Gratitude to you, J____________, for your good questions! How I function in the pluralistic public sphere is “before outsiders” (Col 4:5-6, 1 Thess 4:11-12; 1 Tim 3:7; etc.) I just wrote an essay published in the book The Good, The True, The Beautiful based on this very concept. My responsibility before unbelievers is that of apologetic-evangelism through not only what I say but how I live. There is much to say about that couplet.
What happened at Harvard was pure mission-drift which is true about all individuals (i.e., Demas 2 Tim 4.10) or institutions (Rev 3:15-18); a drift away from “holding fast to the confession of our hope without wavering” (Heb 10.23) which has awful results (10:26-31). Mission within a Christian group, organization, or church is distinctive from how I live and work in the world around me. Romans 1 is a compendium of results of a society whose response to God’s embedded wisdom in the world (Prov 8:12ff) is rejection where God “gives them up” (3 times in Romans 1:22ff).
To your second concern, I have written extensively, unfortunately for this discussion my writing is behind a paywall, a three-part series on forming personal convictions. I would parse my response differently than “support … expressed for the humanist chaplain.” The Harvard Christian Alumni are one organization among many on a pagan campus. In that way, just as military chaplains work with each other (Muslim, Jewish, Catholic, Protestant) under the aegis of a public entity, so I can see no reason why that Christian group cannot work with others in the public sphere. Drawing the line would happen at the leadership structure of that group: all should be committed believers.
I write about sundry ideas on various digital platforms. This exchange was on Ricochet this past week. I am always glad for questions; they compel my best teaching because the queries are specific, personal and relevant to the person.
I was transported back to the 1980’s and 90’s on my drive to university this morning listening to a podcast. 
