The Virtues Are Running Wild

Three Disorders of Modern Christian Institutions

The problem with today’s Christian institutions isn’t necessarily their lack of virtue, but the fact that, as Chesterton says, “The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone.” The love people have for their institutions burns bright, but the embodiment of that love––their virtues––have been let loose and run wild, doing more hurt and longer-lasting damage than the vices, because the virtues are untethered and disordered. The path to true virtue is through reinvigorating the Ordo Amoris––ordering of love––as it was first conceptualized by St. Augustine. As he says in City of God, something “is loved rightly when it is loved ordinately; evilly, when inordinately. . . So that it seems to me that it is a brief but true definition of virtue to say, it is the order of love.” If I love chicken wings more than I love my home, my loves are disordered. It’s the same if I love baseball cards more than I love having a car. On a more subtle scale, this is what’s happening at modern Christian institutions. Being a part of them intimately for last 7 years, and, in some ways, my whole life, I’ve perceived these disorders.

I don’t point with pleasure, but because sometimes the best way to fight for something you love is to acknowledge what is wrong. As Mr. Rogers once said, “Anything that’s human is mentionable, and anything that is mentionable can be more manageable.” So, in this essay, my sole purpose is to acknowledge and diagnose, pointing to 3 disorders in the hope of making the hard road to institutional health for manageable.

1.        Pragmatism Over Principle

Christian institutions carry the moniker “Christian” because their purposes are based in a metaphysical truth claim: that there is a God, and He is revealed to us through the world and the Bible. Belief in God is a principle––a basic belief that lies at the foundation of all decisions. Basically, principles are certain propositions that individuals or communities decide never to act out of accordance with. For example, an unbeliever may observe the Sabbath because they enjoy taking a day to relax every week, but that wouldn’t be acting “on principle”. If their feelings change, they have no reason not to break it. On the other hand, a person who observes the Sabbath because they believe it was commanded by God acts on principle––it is not to be broken. Principles aren’t necessarily connected to religion. A person might tip 20% every time they eat at a restaurant “on principle.” For an institution, a community principle might look something like, “We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative word of God” (National Association of Evangelicals).

Principles, by definition, must be strictly observed. Conversely, pragmatism determines success by whether or not an approach results in a desired outcome. Pragmatists generally hold a “the ends justify the means” philosophy. Leaders of institutions are often pushed toward pragmatism, for one, to win and maintain donors. Where do donors look, for example, to determine whether or not a donation will be money well spent? They look at facts and figures––if attendance is up, if the organization is expanding (putting in new buildings, buying land, etc.), and things like student/attendee reviews. What don’t donors look at? The quality of the teaching, the health and happiness of the faculty, and the substance of what the organization offers. These things take time and attention––things donors don’t have––and are hard to discover in a 10-minute presentation. What’s the consequence? Leaders forcing their employees to serve practical goals instead of the ideals the institution was founded on. Values and principles are the things people become loyal to, which gives their employment––and their lives––a greater meaning. The more clear and specific the mission, vision, and goals of the institution are, the better.

Everyone serves somebody, and our Christian institutions are––due to pragmatism over principle––serving outcomes, and, by extension, donors. If a leader of an institution wants to accomplish meaningful goals with loyal people on the bus, the institution has to be loyal to their principles. Buildings filled with people who aren’t accomplishing the vision the institution was built for are nothing but whitewashed tombs.

2.        Nuance over Clarity

Nuance isn’t evil, it’s just broken loose and running wild. People are “nuancing” to make clear things foggy and avoid what’s unpleasant. People can be over-clear with scriptural interpretation because they prefer to live in an over-simplified world, but they also nuance scripture to weaken the inconvenient truths it teaches. The latter is a bigger problem of today’s zeitgeist. Recently, I heard a pastor suggest the sole context of submission to one’s husband in marriage in 1 Peter were those married to unsaved spouses. Here is the passage:

“Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct” (1Pt 3:1-2).

Certainly, that is the context of the passage, but it isn’t the doctrine. To teach the doctrine, one has to consider the whole of scripture, including verses like “Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands” (Eph 5:24, emphasis mine). That doesn’t teach submission to only unsaved husbands, but, to whoever a woman is married to. We can attribute a certain amount of courage to a pastor who is even willing to read and teach the 1 Peter passage in today’s culture, but shouldn’t a pastor have the courage to teach the doctrine, and, God forbid (He doesn’t), application of the doctrine? As much as we want it to be, the Bible isn’t just helpful advice. Jesus was a lunatic, a liar, or, to believers, the son of the one, true, eternal God. We ought to obey Him out of love––love of God, ourselves, and the world around us. Our Christian leaders have to regain a backbone to call believers to obedience about the clear teachings in order to regain moral sanity.

3.        Niceness Over Courage

As Aristotle said, “Courage is the first virtue that makes all other virtues possible.”

At least in the university context, the job of a college president is near to a professional people-pleaser. This is because, for one, the board has the power to fire him, so it’s necessary to make them happy. Money is required to sustain and grow the university, so the donors must be kept happy. Parents, who pay the tuition, have to be happy for the college to win and retain students. Funny enough, in a school setting, the faculty and the students themselves––no matter how much it may be vocalized otherwise––are often low priorities on the institutional totem pole. It’s remarkably easy for a school to lose sight of being effective at what it exists for; to provide a substantive education to the next generation, making, as John Adam’s put it, good men and useful citizens. It’s not inherently a problem to want to please people. An employee should want their boss or manager to be happy with their work. However, when the main thrust of a leader’s job is to juggle the desires of multiple groups, it makes it hard to know when and how to summon the courage to stand on principle. It’s risky, and no leader wants to end up a failure, but having the kind of courage to do what is right, despite who it alienates or what it means for them personally is also their job.

As I’ve said, the nature of leading a school––as well as any other Christian institution, I imagine––is the art of keeping everyone happy. This, in itself, is work, and the lines between what should be done and what everyone wants you to do become blurred. But a leader needs the judgement to see what is right, and the courage to put it into action.

Those actually involved in the institution, like college students, often become another thing that needs to be kept happy. The institution is a fertile ground for strained logic and muddy (“nuanced”) waters, because decisive stances and sound judgement are controversial. The actual operations of the institution become weak and uninspired, filled to the brim with members anxious only to meet the status quo.

A leader can be too strict, strong, and tyrannical. A man that’s too principled is the kind that’s never wrong––his destiny is to lead the ship Southwest, come hell or high-water, despite the rocks that are dead ahead. That is not the excess of our time. Our excess is leaders who concede too much. Their destiny is to be left plugging holes in the boat instead of charting a course. To successfully chart a course, a leader has to know when to stop making everyone happy and find the right principles to stand on––ones grounded in the metaphysical reality of God, the special revelation of scripture, and the purpose of the institution. Sometimes, that will mean risking one’s legacy or angering people, not in a way that’s intentional, but by knowing what your institution is and is not.

Conclusion

To restore our Christian institutions, we must return to rightly ordered virtues that exist in accordance with man’s nature. Doing so will result in the type of human flourishing people long for. The character of Odysseus, in Homer’s Odyssey, “…struck himself on the chest and spoke to his heart and scolded it: ‘Bear up, my heart. You have had worse to endure before this…” Our own hearts must be called to the same order. Drifting with the tide results in God’s judgement, just as much as the pride of legalism or tyranny. Love and obedience will result in God’s blessing. In other words, Christian institutions must discover the path of virtue again––a narrow path of rightly ordered loves.