Sometimes in pop culture we get the silly versions of “science versus faith.” These often involve Bill Nye debating a lunatic, an evangelical celebrity interpreting storms or other tragedies as God’s wrath (rather than scientifically understandable events), or at best, a simplistic, limited idea about how the two can work together–ideas that mean nothing life-changing, but let privilege continue to exist as you can have both science and faith without tension (just as pastors might also say you can have wealth and Christian humility–$40 million from preaching and God giving you great parking spots through prayer!). On the environment, churches will often “redirect” to the idea of stewardship; which, again, often plays itself out as an acceptance of everything as it is, with at least some acknowledgement that for “some people” the environment might be an issue. In other words, it is literally “business as usual.”

Furman University’s step away from the state convention reflected that growing divide, especially given the strong conservative takeover of the national Southern Baptist Convention. While not fought over any direct threat to academic freedom except trustee representation, the feeling that the denomination was becoming anti-intellectual, afraid of “modern” teaching of sciences, and willing to control schools based on doctrinal differences (especially views on social issues such as minority, women, or gay rights) had done too much.

Now we’ve gone too far. I don’t mean on those issues–we certainly have far more improvement there to make, even as we’re a regional leader. But even faculty can get caught up in the pop culture war of science versus faith, and you can imagine which has won among scholars devoted to rigorous search for truth rather than acceptance of Authority. With a practicing-Baptist President coming from a Baylor coming to serve Furman, worry existed as to what exactly this “return” to Baptist leadership might do.

Here’s a quick review of what I perceive as the high points of the Baptist beliefs:

1. Distrustful of central authority. Baptists were organized as autonomous churches originally; in fact, it was Richard Furman who moved for some limited association, just so churches could encourage broad learning through education and missions to grow the church in other places. While they say they still are today (and are in business affairs and pastor selection), most Southern Baptist churches have become heavily doctrinally committed, receiving pastors from highly authoritarian seminaries and letting the Convention do all the political decision-making, lest those churches be kicked to the curb.
2. Individual freedom and equality. Baptists tended to celebrate the idea of a “priesthood of believers” and “liberty of conscience.” While, yes, the sermon is crucial and only some are gifted to speak eloquently, all believers are equal in their intuitive ability to interpret the Bible, pray, participate in the symbols of the church, and so forth. It should be noted that Baptists are not Quakers, though: such a belief did not mean the complete reorganization of the church away from all authority. Baptists love eloquence, and in the south, that eloquence often came from music or beautiful sermon full of vivid description and story. Yet, it was the fulfillment of the Baptists’ own 17th century persecution, to distributed power even as churches could “elect” to keep traditions, pastors, or other practices they found useful for religious uplift. In other words, democracy was applied as a norm and destiny, not in a revolution.
3. Intergenerational concern. Clearly the one thing that made Baptists into that name was the principle of adult immersion–that to be a part of a religious community was a personal choice, not something fated to you just by genetics or by pledging of your parents. As a commitment, this backs the two points above and adds a third: that each generation decides for itself, in small communities of individuals, what will be its relationship to its faith. And, that each generation will look to ideas and insights outside the previous generation for its mooring. It reminds me quite a bit of Jefferson’s idea of a revolution every 20 years, except that for Baptists, the revolution is internal (and thus not so bloody, thankfully). A revolution in one’s heart, as determined by every son or daughter, could mean a new beginning, a rethinking of what is important in the faith, a separation from community to discover new modes of being, or a self-determination to adopt exactly the views and practices of the proceeding bunch. But it had to be thought and made public, not merely accepted as part of a lineage.

As the Coordinator for the Sustainability faculty program at Furman, the question often comes to me of “What are we doing?” Clearly we’re trying to incorporate a new way of thinking that does not encumber future generations with the problems we’re creating, of waste, destruction, or inequality. We’re trying to think of how economy, society, and environment intersect. But I think we also are doing something a little different, given the Baptist heritage. Or, I’d like to think we are. Here I’ll use the insights from Michael Polanyi to help guide me.

1. Faith. Even plagued by false signs, we do not discard our confidence and faith in a tacit view of the world, because doing so limits us to “Rational” authority of others, which in the end, is authoritarianism by science. Central authorities also get to play that they “know more” than the rest, whether in final appeals to violence or in socially-respected forms of knowledge and symbols of authority. So we do have to elevate individual experience and perception of such experience. “Faith,” as a personal spiritual journey, even when that means search for understanding of God and the big meaningful questions, remains vital to who we are, even as we work within the skill sets and practices of the sciences to be better and find truth.
2. Truth. The only way to protect an institution of higher learning is to protect the idea of truth. With so much anti-intellectualism in society, I think it’s time we get serious. Truth comes not from one central place, but from communities rigorously searching for knowledge with the best methods capable. Yes, it will change generationally and contextually, as even firm scientific knowledge goes through paradigm shifts. But we don’t need to debate with people who are after something other than the truth–like speech for speech’s sake, profit, fame, or political power. We need only to keep showing and looking for evidence, with fields of inquiry structured with autonomy, independence, and only enough interdependence to get things done (grants, collaboration, raising good questions across disciplinary borders). On the other hand, demanding unity of thought or prohibiting future debate on an issue have no place.
3. Tradition. Traditions are tacit and difficult to articulate. They inform most of what we do, intuitively and passed through generations. At a place like Furman, it is easy to forget tradition. Other than the existence of a chapel, it might be hard now to even know the school was Baptist affiliated. Then again, maybe not. By the way I’ve discussed Baptists here, the looking points would be different. Does the student experience embody generational independence, individual freedom and equality, and distrust of central authority more than similar institutions? Do they do all that without completely rejecting general authority, like collaboration and peer review? Do faculty? In teaching, do we let student rediscover their own “rules of the arts” in regard to our disciplines, or do we try to merely give them accepted disciplinary templates to work from? What about our administrators–are they inculcating these values at every step? Do they allow autonomy–as much as is possible for continued co-dependence–to the various decisions and committees of faculty governance? Do they stand up to donors when Truth is on the line?

In other words, are we taking the best parts of the traditions that come before us, remaking them with our individual conscience and truth we have gained, and ensuring that they “live on” beyond our time for reinterpretation and discussion.

We have to look for new ways to talk about sustainability unique to our tradition. I’ve tried to offer one here.

I will say it has become difficult. We were the first into sustainability, in regard to environmental campus projects, but then all our peer institutions copied those. Even in the short time of a decade, we went from visionary to regional leader. With such a pace, how do institutional needs and our moral consciences keep us unique? Budget constraints, governmental regulations and lethargy, and leadership vacuums all create huge hurdles.

But we aren’t going to grab headlines or become a symbolic leader if we’re copying our peers. We have to work with individual autonomy while not sacrificing areas where collaboration will make us better. We have to ensure that each generation and each individual gets to come into the ongoing discussion and debate rather than giving easy answers. To me, that is what “sustainability” is all about–whether it be for individuals, institutions, churches, or the Earth.