Does God make a difference for student affairs? Emerging student affairs in the Christian story

Abstract

Despite a focus on the holistic formation of students, nonreligious narratives shape student affairs theories and professional practice guidelines. Recognizing this problem, Christian scholar-practitioners have authored a growing body of literature about what might be distinct about Christian student affairs. This article provides an analysis of the theological foundations used in this literature. Our aim was to locate the unique theological building blocks for a more comprehensive Christian theology of student affairs. Our analysis found that placing and practicing the profession of student affairs within the Christian narrative produced noteworthy distinctives in every aspect of student affairs.

Keywords

Christian student affairs student development theology

Student affairs started largely as a “secular” discipline. Religion and spirituality were given only minor attention, and God or specifically theological thinking and language played no role in the development of early statements and theories which guided the field (Glanzer and Ream, 2009). Instead, its leaders drew on nonreligious narratives to inspire and guide its outlook, particularly the national political goal of educating citizens and a secular psychological story of human development. For example, the American Council on Education’s (1949) revised statement, The Student Personnel Point of View, articulated its end as “education for a fuller realization of democracy in every phase of living” and “the application of creative imagination and trained intelligence to the solution of social problems and to the administration of public affairs” (American Council on Education, 1949: 2). For these leaders, democracy served not merely as the country’s political philosophy but also as a guiding philosophy for education and for life. Thus, the student affairs movement claimed, “Our way of life depends upon a renewed faith in, and extensive use of, democratic methods, upon the development of more citizens to assume responsibilities in matters of social concern, and upon the active participation of millions of men and women in the enterprise of social improvement” (American Council on Education, 1949: 2). Colleges and universities, therefore, needed to inculcate in students “a firm and enlightened belief in democracy” (American Council on Education, 1949: 2). In an increasingly religiously pluralistic higher education system, the ends of promoting democracy and secular psycho-social understandings of development were ends on which all Americans could potentially agree. This approach has continued to persist today.

Thus, as Christian and Catholic colleges and universities have gone about “professionalizing” their student affairs divisions by retiring seminary degree-bearing practitioners and hiring professionals with newly-minted master’s degrees in student affairs, many of these new professionals have been educated in student affairs programs guided by different narratives and ends. Most of the professionals these institutions hire have been taught student affairs theories, frameworks, and categories that try to make metaphysically vacuous generalizations about the students the profession is intended to serve. These theories reflect the foundational theorists who often downplay their metaphysical assumptions and usually avoid larger philosophical or theological questions about personhood, the good life, and more (e.g. Evans et al., 2010).

Does the secular nature of most student affairs theory and education matter? Of course, if “all truth is God’s truth,” it should be no surprise to find much of this professional training is often empirically factual, theoretically uncontroversial, generally “moral,” and thus helpful. As a result, one Christian student affairs professional recently told us that he fails to see any purpose or benefit to a theology of student affairs. This professional seemed to suggest that talking about Christian student affairs is as odd as talking about Christian baseball, trumpet-playing, or fantasy writing. The fundamental practice, which in this case is caring holistically for students, is something grounded in God’s good creation, and not a practice that needs discussion about being distinctly Christian. Instead, we merely need Biblically-informed and shaped Christians to pursue excellence within the student affairs field.

The problem with this outlook is that at the heart of student affairs is the student. Thus, whenever we talk about student success or caring for the whole person and fail to acknowledge that the student is made imago Dei, in the image of God, the whole of the discipline can become corrupted. We simply cannot understand the whole student without understanding God and our relationship to God. For instance, there is a significant amount of discussion in student affairs about self-authorship. Self-authorship for the major scholar on this topic, Marcia Baxter Magolda (1999: 6), is “a way of making meaning of the world and oneself.” This understanding of student development is most at home in a liberal democracy which emphasizes the importance of developing human autonomy and choosing one’s worldview. Christians who understand students as made in God’s image, however, understand our need for co-authorship to achieve human flourishing. We must discover God’s world and build our lives with God’s help.

Not surprisingly, Christian student affairs leaders find young professionals, with their reductionistic and metaphysically-meager theory base, ill-prepared to think about their work within a larger Christian narrative (Estanek, 1996; Estanek et al., 2011). In this regard, the professionalization of student affairs poses a unique challenge for Protestant and Catholic colleges and universities, or what we simply call “Christian colleges and universities.” To meet this challenge, Christian scholar-practitioners over the past three decades have produced a growing body of literature about what might be different or unique about a distinctly Christian student affairs (e.g. Balzer and Reed, 2012; Beers and Trudeau, 2015; Estanek, 2002; Estanek et al., 2017; Guthrie, 1997; Herrmann and Riedel, 2018).

The ambitious purpose of this article, and the larger research project this prolegomenous article serves, is to try to join this effort to redeem student affairs. To do so, we attempt to do what has not yet been done. We will draw together the disparate strands of theological analysis of this literature to build a larger Christian theology of student affairs. We pinpoint the particular theological elements authors mention to locate the unique building blocks for this more comprehensive Christian theology of student affairs while also noting some gaps. In the end, we hope that this effort will help student affairs practitioners think and live within the Christian story.

David I Smith and James KA Smith (2011) highlighted the importance of theological imagination for the work of teachers, and we think their insight also applies to the work of Christian student affairs. Such an imagination would help practitioners imagine student success quite differently. They quoted an illustration from Etienne Wenger (1999: 176):

Two stonecutters … are asked what they are doing. One responds: “I am cutting this stone in a perfectly square shape.” The other responds: “I am building a cathedral.” Both answers are correct and meaningful, but they reflect different relations to the world. The difference between these answers does not imply that one is a better stonecutter than the other, as far as holding the chisel is concerned. At the level of engagement, they may well be doing exactly the same thing. But it does suggest that their experiences of what they are doing and their sense of self in doing it are rather different. This difference is a function of imagination. As a result, they may be learning very different things from the same activity.

In a similar manner, we think theological vision is vitally important for the way student affairs professionals imagine their craft. Are we retaining students or building humans who image and represent God? We also think it shapes how they practice and construct it. To give just one example of what this might look like, Brock et al. (2016) found that administrators who promoted racial justice on their campuses described it as central to their theological and ecclesiological beliefs. They noted, “Participants cared deeply about the work of social justice because of their understanding of God, the universal church, and the consistency of living out one’s Christian faith, which necessitated that they serve as advocates for justice in their current spheres of service” (Brock et al., 2016: 28). Just as they describe in this example, an extensive review of the literature reveals that Christian administrators’ theological beliefs often shape their work with students in significant ways.

Looking for God in student affairs literature

Our “search for God” in student affairs literature is really an effort to discover how leaders writing about student affairs overtly connect theology and the biblical narrative to their work. We should note that this purpose is not the object of some authors writing about Christian student affairs, and we have not included their work here. For example, we have filtered out literature focused on making an empirical contribution either to our current knowledge of Christian higher education (e.g. Christian higher education as sub-population within higher education), to our knowledge of a particular group of students at Christian institutions (e.g., a certain race or gender), or to how a certain general student development theory might apply in Christian higher education. Our outline focuses on authors who directly set forth a particular theological connection to the practice of student affairs. We organize our findings using the four basic questions any educational philosophy must answer: Who? Why? What? and How?

Who?

“Who are we?” is the most fundamental question facing student affairs practitioners. This question is important because “to know who you are is to be oriented in moral space, a space in which questions arise about what is good or bad, what is worth doing and what not, what has meaning and importance for you and what is trivial and secondary” (Taylor, 1989: 28). The importance of identity and its associated story for orienting oneself metaphysically and morally also proves true for how Christian student affairs staff view themselves and their students. One of the foundational Christian books about student affairs used popular categories for the Christian narrative—Creation, Fall, and Redemption (Restoration was not addressed)—to provide a framework for understanding a distinctly Christian approach to student affairs (Guthrie, 1997; Hermann and Riedel, 2018). We found this outline a helpful framework by which to organize our findings about articles that answered the “Who?” question.

Creation

The belief that God created the whole universe, is sovereign over creation, and has good intentions for it is one of the most important parts of the Christian story for writers. These views influence their approach to working with students in four major ways.

First, as already described, one of the most-often discussed theological connections made by authors concerned the belief that all humans are made imago Dei. This fundamental uniqueness provides a meta-identity that establishes human worth and a strong conscience (Christie, 2002). As Shirley Hoogstra and John Witte (2015: 104) wrote, “The image of God doesn’t mean we’re all the same, but it means we all have value and worth—in spite of, and because of, our differences.” Seen from this perspective, various types of students are not problems to be solved, but are individuals made in God’s image who deserve love (Austin et al., 2013).

A second doctrinal conclusion that emerged from the creation narrative is that the gender binary of male and female is a God-given, normative, and integral part of our identity (Killam and Gingrich, 2011). Sandra Estanek et al. (2017: 95) wrote the following when summarizing Catholic Church teaching:

… because each person is created in the image and likeness of God, each person is possessed of an inherent and absolute dignity. This unity of body and soul is gendered: “male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:26–28) … the Church holds that binary heterosexuality is normative. “Being man” or “being woman” is a reality that is good and willed by God.

This theological outlook, which most Evangelical institutions share, creates significant tension with current cultural norms and within these Christian educational institutions themselves. Student affairs staff in particular face the challenge of wrestling with the implications of this theological stance with diverse students.

Third, another creation-based identity that receives emphasis from authors is that of being a steward (based on Genesis 1:28–30). We are called to take care of creation (which includes ourselves). As Riedel et al. (2018: 80) set forth, “In order to faithfully love God with our whole selves, we must practice good stewardship of our hearts, souls, and minds—essentially, our entire created being.” As part of this stewardship, like God, we ourselves create and demonstrate a certain amount of sovereignty over our creations.

Finally, as God is Trinitarian and we are created imago Dei, we are fashioned for community. As Hoogstra and Witte (2015: 104) mentioned, “we’re human beings, created by God to be in community with each other.” Similarly, Keiffer et al. (2015) also pointed to the doctrine of the trinity and the imago Dei as an essential foundation for understanding our desire and need for human community when they wrote:

The importance of community stems from our creation. In Genesis it is a relational, triune God who lovingly forms man from the dust and imprints the divine image within him. From this relational God we understand that the original design is for harmony with God and the creation … God did not make us to live alone in isolation. (Keiffer et al., 2015: 160)

In fact, our differences can be special gifts that God can use to enhance the community.

The vision of a good community is also informed by the creation narrative. There is an ideal of the best community established and nurtured by the virtues of God’s character. “For example, social relationships are part of God’s created order and God has various intentions regarding how they best occur (e.g., with integrity; love neighbor as one’s self)” (Thomas and Guthrie, 1997). These particular virtues are not simply arbitrary. As humans made in God’s image, God designed us to be most fully human when we imitate His character. Goodwin (2017: 83) described one such connection regarding the virtues of hospitality and love:

We know through the readings of Genesis that God was the ultimate host, creating a world abundant with beauty and natural riches for our pleasure. He gave us one another for companionship and friendship and called us to love one another as He loves us. It is in this context theme that hospitality should be considered.

In this way, Christian community is unified around a common understanding of God, ourselves, and God’s purposes for us.

In summary, the Christian student affairs literature starts answering the question of “Who?” by declaring God created us as valuable image-bearers endowed with His dignity. We are also gendered and social beings who need community, such as family, friends, and neighbors. Moreover, when we conduct these social relationships as image-bearers who demonstrate God’s virtues of love, hospitality, holiness, and others, we experience the flourishing for which we were designed.

The Fall

Interestingly, throughout our whole literature analysis, we found very few extensive discussions about sin or the fact that we, as human beings, are sinners. Indeed, one could even argue that student affairs writers seem to have a bit of an aversion to discussions about sin. Of course, some authors implied the Fall by talking about dealing with students’ brokenness. The most extensive discussion of the Fall came from Thomas and Guthrie (1997: 6). They noted that the Fall means that we develop areas of life without attention to God’s purposes, which would imply that this problem is one of the core problems with fallen forms of student affairs. Their discussion, however, does not elaborate about what sin does to the profession and practice of student affairs – how it wounds the students in their care or perhaps blinds student affairs to the idea that students even need salvation. Overall, we believe this lack of attention to the Fall hinders the ability of student affairs practitioners to speak God’s wisdom and grace into certain situations.

Redemption

The Fall provides us with the tragic identity of being sinners. Fortunately, Christianity provides everyone with not only a fundamental identity that is rooted in creation, but it also sets forth the possibility of having a new identity beyond that of being a sinner or even someone who is a failure, mistake-prone, or broken. For instance, Beers (2003) discussed a model of faith development that differed in its Christian particularity from that of James Fowler’s scheme (1981). Beers’ (2003) model included recognition of one’s selfishness, one’s value as being made in God’s image and a turn to an understanding of how Christ provides a way of redemption to recapture God’s image. Moreover, further development occurs “where the redeemed person’s actions and intentions join the work of God in redeeming His creation” (Beers and Trudeau, 2015: 28).

Through Christ’s redemption, we are also part of Christ’s body. The image of the body in First Corinthians is used as a reminder of what the best community looks like. Hoogstra and Witte (2015: 104) wrote, “Knowing that God can look at your community as the body of Christ calls us to do the same, recognizing the part that each resident plays.” Again, the model for character in this Christian family is Christ. Poorman (2017: 39) shared a contrast between this identity and our civic identity and explained what this means for the Christian residence hall. Christian community

… does not just tolerate others because they possess certain civil rights. Rather, it offers a total embrace of others simply because they are children of God … Christianity is communal at its very core, and our residence halls are the natural extension of the community that Jesus created with the disciples and that has characterized the manifold forms of “church” ever since.

In this sense, the community of believers on campus functions as a unique part of the church.

Why?

Although the aims vary in subtle ways, theologically-informed visions of Christian student affairs usually follow from this story-formed identity. The idea that God created us informs what exactly “whole purpose development” means, since, as Thomas and Guthrie (1997: 6) wrote, “God has intentions for the created order. God desires the created order to develop in ways that conform to God’s intentions for it.” If we are meant to bear God’s image in a variety of ways, then the biblical story will provide the substance for those aims.

Interestingly, few authors mentioned anything about how the Fall disorders God’s creation and leaves humans to pursue other purposes besides God’s. The exception to this finding proved to be the authors who wrote about disciplining students. In this case, understanding one’s ultimate purpose and place in light of God’s overall story transforms the student disciplinary process (please see, for example, Shotnicki and Geary, 2017: 151–155). Broquard (2015: 147) suggested that “when your goal is to honor God through your confrontation and discipline, there ceases to be an ‘us versus them’ mentality. This removes barriers between you and the student. It communicates care, concern, and support, not judgment, condemnation, and resentment.” Similar to discipline, much of the discussion about the purpose or purposes of student affairs professionals in Christian and Catholic institutions focused upon what we would call redemptive purposes accomplished through and with Christ. Indeed, Ivester (2012: 169) argued this is a distinctive of Christian student affairs when he described it as “the context for God’s creative and redemptive work … a process of transformation, not mere job preparation.” Similarly, Beers (2003: 30) observed that what differentiates Christian student affairs from more pluralistic forms “is that the Christian college developmental programs are attempting to partner with God to transform students into the image of Christ.” Poorman (2017: 38) described this redemptive transformation more specifically, writing:

As Christians, we are living to be the face of Christ for others; in this case, the students we serve. Various people are the presence of God to others in differing ways. It never ceases to amaze me that the vastly disparate personalities within a given hall staff have a remarkable collective capacity to reach nearly all our students. The members of our hall staff bring to the position what and who they are, and Christ works through these unique personalities to reach the individual people who are entrusted to their care.

In light of these types of statements, what exactly does it mean to be the face of Christ?

Christ’s redemptive virtue mentioned most often is love. Regarding the ends of Catholic higher education, James (2017: 67) contended, “The twin goals of Catholic colleges and universities to form individual students and to build the community become, to a certain extent, both the method and the consequence of the community that is discovering God-love. In this way, we become more fully human.” He went on to claim:

A Christian anthropology for student development calls us to encounter Jesus in one another through love. As student affairs professionals at Catholic colleges and universities, we are called to live a vocation that invites all members of the community to practice the “art of loving” … We ask ourselves, “What is the will of God in this moment, with this person?” The answer is simple: to love that person who is made in the image of God. We must initiate love for the other right away without expecting anything in return. (James, 2017: 67)

James made clear, as did many other authors, that this end of loving God and loving others involves a kind of self-sacrificial love that is directed to all people, but especially the “least of these” (Loy, 2003: 9). One of the most engaging quotes, which was directed to resident assistants, declared:

We must love our neighbors, especially our neighbors at the margins, those beyond the favorable light of power, outside the gate of privilege, beyond the pale of popularity, indeed those that are distant [to us] and culturally different. Loving the neighbor requires a kind of active, sensitive, painstaking, time-consuming, self giving appreciation and attentiveness to loving the other—not others as I would like them to be or as I assume they are or as a means to my end or as a raw matter for my project or as “the lost” that need to be led by me, but as real others in all of their integrity, complexity, agency, agony, beauty, and intrinsic value as people. (Ivester, 2015: 136)

The communal goal, then, is to reflect the kingdom of God in both the quality of virtues while also being a representative of the full diversity of God’s kingdom.

Other writers also discussed the goal of student affairs as teaching students to follow and model Christ. Speaking to Resident Assistants, Beers (2003: 30) wrote, “As a spiritual leader in your living community, you are called to train and instruct those you meet in the ways of Christ. As an RA, your role as a spiritual leader in the faith development of your residents is an outgrowth of your larger calling as a follower of Christ.” In our search through the literature, we noticed that some tension existed among Protestant scholars regarding the ends for student affairs practice. As student affairs became a profession, there appeared to be some resistance to using language associated with Christian “ministry” versus academic language focused on “learning” (Loy, 2003). Yet, there were also others who argued that these different types of goals should be brought together (Johnstone, 2009). Our own sympathies are with this latter point, as one of us describes what we do as intellectual discipleship. In other words, although it should be made clear that student development is different than a church camp experience, it is important not to jettison theological language and goals for pure secular language.

What?

Christian student affairs scholar-practitioners shared a vision for student affairs that involved sharing and modeling a Trinitarian community of character. Thus, this vision focused upon God’s character features that are revealed in His creation as well as His redemption. WoodBrooks (2017: 72) exemplified this perspective when she wrote:

Perhaps the most important thing we can share during some of those heart-to-hearts with students is the beauty of God’s grace, mercy, and forgiveness. His unconditional love is a difficult concept for people to accept. We strive to be our best possible selves, but God still loves us even at our worst.

Protestants tend to emphasize that the nature of this community is enhanced by exhibiting Christlikeness, which is usually interpreted as involving particular virtues. For example, in his essay written to Resident Assistants, Ivester (2015: 134) explained:

… resident assistants must develop a biblical vision for community wherein their programming is born out of a posture of personal and corporate formation into Christlikeness … Certainly the student living environment calls students of faith to live out lives of compassion, righteousness, and justice and to strive to follow Jesus and invite each other to live into God’s kingdom.

In this respect, living in God’s kingdom is often equated to living out various Christ-like virtues.

Some authors we read focused on particular virtues. The virtue of servant leadership is one that received attention from both Protestant and Catholic scholars alike. Ivester (2015) made a connection to Jesus when he explained the virtue of student leadership: “Resident assistants can best serve students in their growth and capacity as servant leaders when they develop an intentional discourse that leads to a theological consideration of a theology of leadership that captures the example of Jesus Christ” (Ivester, 2015: 134). Similarly, Maher (2017: 29) called for a “spirituality of administration” that, at the core, considers administration to be “a labor of servant leadership”. He claimed, “Such an approach recognizes that a spirituality of administration seeks not to make administration its end; rather, in the words of St. Paul in the letter of Timothy, to allow truth, beauty, and God’s spirit to flourish” (Maher, 2017: 29). In many cases, a certain amount of theological literacy seemed to be assumed in that it was expected that students would understand the narrative and theological context for these virtues.

How?

As student affairs is a practical discipline, it should perhaps be no surprise that one of the most well-developed areas in this body of literature concerns how to reach its aims and how to impart this content. Poorman (2017) pointed out that, for Catholics, the answer to the “How?” question is really “through everything.” The reason for the universality of this answer is:

… the Catholic vision perceives God working through persons, events, and material things. In all those discrete events and happenings of the day, or a week, or a year, the hand of God is at work in the life of the individual student. As we all know, there are certain predictable and perennial things that happen on a university campus: first-year orientation, job searches, volunteer opportunities, commencement. The Catholic vision sees these and all the points in our lives as “moments of grace,” where God is working in what are sometimes the strangest and most difficult circumstances. Why is this principle of mediation important to residential life? As ministers, our hall staffs are doing more than just counseling, policing, or hanging out. They live day-to-day with their senses tuned to the truth that God may be doing a new thing, a good thing, a holy thing in the lives of the students they serve and recognize that they may well be the agents for God’s grace. (Poorman, 2017: 38)

Although Protestants do not use this same sacramental language, they do share this outlook.

Thus, it is important to recognize that for many practitioners there are no “secular” methods. Some articles we reviewed tended to focus on the importance of seeing everything in light of God’s story. For example, Reese pointed out that successful spiritual formation practices “were based on noticing God’s story in the midst of our story” (Reese, 2012: 162). She went on to note, “Student development professionals also noticed that how they relied on the way God moved in their own personal stories had significant influence on who they ministered to and how they paid attention to the lives of their students” (Reese, 2012: 162). The importance of personal faith is central to Cliburn Allen and Alleman’s (2017: 285–302) praxis model which described a professional’s religious “habitus” as the foundation for faith integration. Each of these authors discussed a practice or consciousness of God in every aspect of life and student affairs. Of course, other writers also identified particular methods of importance which can be divided into practices and virtues.

Practices

The practices came in two forms: (i) professional practices and (ii) spiritual practices. Most of these professional practices are not unique to Christianity. How Christianity changes the practices pertains to the ends and content of the practices. The spiritual practices are ones that student affairs professionals will not perform in their professional capacity at a pluralistic institution.

One example of such a practice is mentorship, a term commonly used in a professional context. In a biblical or spiritual context, it is known as discipleship. In this instance, what Christianity adds to this conversation is a different set of models to emulate as well as a focus on sanctification. The different models are Jesus, His disciples, and the church fathers. For example, two Lutheran scholars pointed to this example: “Martin and Katie Luther housed up to thirty students at a time in their home, the Black Cloister, a refurbished monastery turned de facto dormitory complex” (Keith and Fugitt, 2015: 295).

To find staff willing to disciple students, one of the obvious starting practices that scholars and practitioners often cited was hiring for the faith mission of their institutions (Felio and Robinson, 2017; Hengemuhle, 2017). Administrators also pointed out the important staff development tools available once one has been hired for mission. These included retreats, monthly workshops, reading groups, or speaking series that discuss the integration of mission with one’s practice. In other words, administrators have certain methods by which they also hope to professionally disciple or mentor their staff.

A variety of other practices were mentioned as being informed and transformed by a Christian perspective. A couple of scholar-practitioners talked about how Christianity shaped their approach to challenging students—a common student affairs concept that springs from Sanford’s theory of challenge and support (Sanford, 1962: 1–69; for more articles from an explicitly Christian perspective that deal with this issue, please see Beers, 2003; Christie, 2002; Morley and Hightower, 2015). Morley and Hightower (2015: 126) described a Christian version in the following manner:

… offering challenge is about inviting someone to be her best self, to be who God has called her to be. It means being honest but not condemning. It means speaking truth and sometimes difficult words, but not out of a posture of superiority or authority. Rather, it means encouraging and inviting others to participate in the ways God is working in their lives.

In this account, a challenge should be clearly connected to our theological ideals.

In many cases, a regular professional practice was transformed by allowing and encouraging students to reflect upon what God was doing in a particular situation. For instance, reflection before and after participating in service-learning is a common practice in student affairs. Yet, for the Christian, “reflection provides the opportunity for students to see how their faith can be strengthened through their work. The actor performing caring and compassionate service may allow students to see the work of God in others and themselves” (Mogan, 2017: 140).

Interestingly, both presence/fellowship and absence/solitude were mentioned as helpful practices. Presence is something that God offers through Christ and His Holy Spirit—God Immanuel or God with us—and it is something we should offer especially to hurting students (Fostner, 2017; Hoogstra and Witte, 2015). Indeed, one research paper found that one of the best support systems for students on the margins was the practice of fellowship (King, 2009). Morley and Hightower (2015: 117) also noted that absence can be a time when we make room for the Holy Spirit to work in a student’s life:

… when you withdraw from a situation or a person at appropriate times, this absence creates further room for the Holy Spirit to work in his life and your own … Furthermore, your absence encourages your peers not to be dependent on you and empowers them in their relationship with God.

In addition, staff may need to withdraw from community to allow God to work in both the staff person as well as in others. Morley and Hightower (2015: 117) wrote that:

… in these times, we can lose sight of our humanness and often put less trust in God. We also lose sight of the larger picture and the promises of our Christian faith. The physical act of removing yourself from the location, people, and things attached to it allows the Lord to remind you of your capacity and how this seemingly overwhelming situation fits into his larger picture.

What makes these practices uniquely Christian is the view that they are undertaken in faith that God will continue to work in others and ourselves in the midst of them.

Of course, more explicit spiritual practices were also suggested in some of the articles we reviewed. We define spiritual practices as those which are commonly thought of as practices only undertaken in a religious context (e.g. prayer, monastic rules). Not surprisingly, among these articles prayer emerged as an important practice in multiple ways. In some cases, prayer was used simply to help someone be more virtuous in a certain situation. Hoogstra and Witte (2015: 108) wrote about White privilege to Resident Assistants, “Pray that God will open your ears to listen well, particularly when you recognize that someone is different than you.” Other authors talked about praying during a conflict or a crisis. Fostner (2017: 174) discussed how, “Once, we sent a simple email at 2:00 a.m. letting the campus know about a death and that there will be a prayer service at 3:00 a.m. The result was a church overflowing with community-members.”

As mentioned earlier, sin was rarely discussed in much of the literature, except when practitioners referred to matters of student discipline. In this case, the how, or method, was informed by certain Christian practices. For instance, Shotnicki and Geary (2017: 152) connected Catholic theology and practice with the student discipline process in a unique manner when considering that the sacrament of penance, similar to what Protestants call restorative justice, focuses on restoring the damaged relationship through “acknowledgment of fault, contrition, and absolution.” The theological context for this form of discipline is an understanding that penance is “the response of the penitent to the gratuitous and forgiving love of God, payments not imposed by God (when there are no conditions upon God’s love) but ideally brought by the penitent on him or herself.” They provided a powerful example of how this works in practice:

An example of this concerns a young man found responsible for misconduct revealed that his primary motivation for succumbing to peer pressure was his hope that, by joining in, “maybe these guys would call me when they are going to the gym.” Recognizing his deep loneliness and resulting vulnerability, forgiveness is articulated through a sanction carefully planned to enable him the opportunity to access a welcoming and affirming peer group. In this case, assigning service hours on a popular campus ministry project enabled him to forge healthy friendships and become socially connected. (Shotnicki and Geary, 2017: 152–153)

As the church has a long history of practices that deal with sinful behavior, these practices transfer quite directly to the student discipline process.

Broader sets of practices were also emphasized. For example, Jay DeFruscio (2017: 131) discussed using prayer, communal gatherings, testimony, and service to shape his athletic program:

We often began our school year with a prayer service for students, staff, and coaches in the chapel, with the coach and student sharing the benefits of leading an ethical, focused life grounded in a spiritual journey. Additionally, student athletes and coaches participated in department-wide community service projects and team retreats. Finally, all were strongly encouraged to participate with the entire student body and, where possible, become actively engaged in leading others on campus and in the local community.

Similarly, Keiffer et al.’s (2015: 63) suggestions for RAs included “establishing a floor prayer chain, hosting open room dialogues, listening well to life-stories, and practicing hospitality are just some of the ways the RA can help to establish a caring community”.

In another case, Williamson argued that student leadership skills can be honed through the whole set of monastic practices and spiritual disciplines. He claimed, “These disciplines produce the inter- and intra-personal qualities educators desire to see cultivated in student leaders on their campuses (hope, strength, humility, trust, joy, compassion, gratitude, laughter, empathy; and the ability to see and interact with others in the ways God intends)” (Williamson, 2018). Overall, these activities help produce the fruit of the Spirit as well as other positives (i.e., leadership potential, ability to collaborate, academic improvement, positive cognitive, emotional, and behavioral growth in students). In short, it is easy to wonder why we ever moved Christian education from the monasteries in the first place.

Virtues

Writers sought not only to teach Christian virtues but also to incorporate them in their practice; in fact, these virtues were cited as the most effective pedagogy. Some of the important pedagogical virtues included stewardship, hospitality, forgiveness, trust, and care. For instance, Meyer and Wankel (2002) discussed how they each conceptualized the concept of stewardship in a Christian way and then sought to practice this virtue. The unfortunate context for this practice was a fire at their institution that left 3 students dead, 58 injured, and 650 without a home. They described their application as they dealt with this horrific tragedy:

In crisis situations, understanding and embracing stewardship is key to making proper decisions. It was very important on occasion for staff members to be sent home to rest, be with their own families, to replenish, pray, and refresh. To be good stewards of one’s gifts at times means giving two hundred percent and at other times taking time off. The good steward finds the appropriate balance and is able to say and trust in prayer: “God I have given what I have for this day, the rest is up to you.” (Meyer and Wankel, 2002: 182–83)

This theologically-informed understanding of stewardship brings a welcome understanding of human limitations within a profession that often keeps long and difficult hours. Stewardship and care share many similarities, and one recently-published book on caring provides an in-depth exploration of what one could call the stewardship of students (Herrmann and Riedel, 2018).

Hospitality and love were two other virtues emphasized as vital for cultivating a robust on-campus Christian community. Hospitality demands “that we work at being in right relationship with one another within the context of community, open to the encounter and exchange of guest and host, experiencing one another in an expression of God’s love” (Kirkpatrick, 2017: 80). This approach to hospitality involves more than teaching its importance; it must be part of the very fabric of one’s relationships.

Although we would consider stewardship and hospitality as virtues rooted in God’s creation, the virtues of inclusivity and forgiveness are clearly the ones required due to sin and rupturing of relationships. As James 2:1–7 reminds us, inclusivity involves seeking to include those on the margins of society so that they have a seat at the table. Keiffer et al. (2015) wrote, “As an RA, you should strive to be Christ-like and ensure that every person has a valued seat at your table.” Inclusivity could be said to be an extension of hospitality that seeks to overcome the relational alienation produced by the Fall. Kirkpatrick (2017: 79) incorporated inclusivity in hospitality, stating that “hospitality is one of the oldest and most critical Christian virtues and can be understood as welcoming, caring for, and engaging ‘the other,’ not just the powerful, but strangers and those at the margins as well.” She went on to note that the underlying theological reason for this practice is the sacramental view of Catholicism that views all human beings as manifestations of God’s love and representatives of Christ, including those with moral or theological differences:

For example, an orientation leader once informed me that one of our new students had not eaten dinner because the dining hall closed before sunset. It was Ramadan, a Muslim holy time that we had not considered in our planning. Allowing this student to practice her faith while living on campus is the very embodiment of hospitality, but we had somehow missed it. Whatever our students’ faith practices may or may not be, we are called to welcome them with respect, for every person has value and is made in the image and likeness of God. (Goodwin, 2017: 84)

For Catholic thinkers such as Kilpatrick, understanding that humans are made in God’s image is the important theological reason for demonstrating respect (see also Estanek et al., 2017). Although Protestants do not share a similar sacramental view, they also share the belief that all humans are made in the image and likeness of God and therefore deserve respect and hospitality.

The virtue of love for students was also mentioned and interpreted in light of the overall redemptive part of the Christian story. In other words, Christian student affairs practice requires the deep kind of sacrificial love God shows to us. Goodwin (2017: 86) described this overall understanding:

When student affairs professionals are asked why they chose the profession, they often respond, “because I love students.” There is no denying that the work we do and the strong relationships we develop with the students are often filled with feelings of deep affection. However, the love referenced above is longer lasting and less conditional than affection. It is willful love. It is choosing to love as God commands us, demonstrating a commitment to each person equally in treating every person with respect and thoughtfulness, regardless of their beliefs or behaviors.

Not surprisingly, the practitioners and scholars we reviewed also drew upon Christ as an example of how to demonstrate Christian virtue in a community. For instance, Beers (2003) wrote about how Resident Assistants need to practice the virtue of presence. He observed, “Scripture chronicles God’s consistent story of being available and present in concrete ways, with the most spectacular example being the incarnation of Christ and his physical presence with us” (Beers, 2003: 26). Goodwin (2017) observed that Jesus is the ideal host that we are asked to follow—He acts invitationally.

In a study relating to racial justice, other administrators saw the vision of how—even though we are “flawed”—we are adopted into God’s family, as inspiring the virtues of hospitality and inclusiveness:

We are supposed to take care of those who are on the outside and to bring them in, to treat them as family, as Christ did for us. He treats us as family. He treats us as children, when we’re anything but that, you know? We are of Creation and we’re flawed, but He has been so inclusive. (Brock et al., 2016: 30)

Overall, a variety of Christian virtues played an important pedagogical role in the development of students. This variety helps remind us that character development involves more than just a focus on one or two favorite virtues.

Conclusion

What difference does Christianity make for student affairs? First, it defines practitioners and their students. God created us as valuable image-bearers with dignity who are designed for a relationship with Him and are asked to live in virtuous relationships with others in community. Although sin has broken those relationships, we can restore them through Christ and become adopted children of God who share a virtue-filled community with others.

At Christian universities, student affairs staff in particular are charged with bearing God’s image and imitating Christ by modeling individual and corporate virtues, such as God’s sacrificial love and mentoring and discipling them to do the same. They practically promote this end through helping students live in light of God’s story and to look to see how God is working through everything. Student affairs staff are also called to transform usual practices such as challenging students, being there for students, and listening to students by understanding and practicing these activities in light of the Christian narrative.

Clearly, we found excellent building materials for constructing an overall theological vision for Christian student affairs, but we also must point out crucial elements we found missing. The literature seemed to ignore both the Fall and Restoration. In the area of virtue development, other important Christian virtues did not appear, including humility, forgiveness, gratitude, and generosity. This last one is particularly important in light of findings that charitable giving appears vitally important to students’ spiritual development (Astin et al., 2011).

Of course, there are likely many additional Christian practices that are missing from this literature. James KA Smith’s (2014: 163) conversation about Christian higher education in general could also apply to student affairs:

What we need is a kind of clearinghouse or digital commons in which different practitioners could share stories about experiments and initiatives in their contexts, being honest about both successes and failures. This in itself would be a Christian practice of testimony, bearing witness by sharing our stories, and the result would be a growing catalogue of best practices as Christian universities try to cultivate environments that form not only Christian minds but Christian loves—indexing student desire to kingdom come so that they long for, and act for, shalom.

Certainly, much more needs to be done to think imaginatively about how the Person and story of God relates to—and animates—student affairs.

To conclude, we believe the work presented here indicates a trajectory of hope. This trajectory sees the value of rooting the purposes of Christian student affairs in the larger vision of redemptive history. This trajectory sees Christian student affairs as cathedral building, not mere stone cutting. We are, by God's grace and strength, building students made in God’s image to be temples of the Holy Spirit and not merely instruments for institutional retention, a democratic society or economic utility. Much work has been done, but much more remains as we look to establish a Christian theology of student affairs.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Association for Christians in Student Development. The organization did not have a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, writing of the report, or decision to submit the article for publication. We have no financial interest or benefit that arises from the direct applications of this research. This manuscript has not been published elsewhere and has not been submitted simultaneously for publication elsewhere.

Authors' Note

Britney Graber is also affilated with Trevecca Nazarene University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

American Council on Education (1949) The Student Personnel Point of View, Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Astin

Lindholm

(2011) Cultivating the Spirit: How College Can Enhance Students’ Inner Lives, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Austin

Deegan

Fulton

Karrick

(2013) Undocumented students in Christian higher education: Theological and legal ramifications for financing student leaders. Growth 12(1): 36–43.

Balzer

Reed

(2012) Building a Culture of Faith: University-Wide Partnerships for Spiritual Formation, Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press.

Baxter Magolda

(1999) Creating Contexts for Learning and Self-Authorship: Constructive-Developmental Pedagogy, Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

Beers

(2003) Faith development of Christian college campuses: A student affairs mandate. Growth 3(3): 23–35.

Beers S and Trudeau S (eds) (2015) Making a Difference: Empowering the Resident Assistant. Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press.

Brock

Hambrick

Jun

(2016) The intersection of Christianity and racial justice advocacy. Growth: The Journal of the Association for Christians in Student Development 15(15): 24–35.

Broquard

(2015) The 3,500 pennies: The role of the resident assistant in confrontation and discipline. In: Beers

Trudeau

(eds) Making a Difference: Empowering the Resident Assistant, Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press, pp. 145–157.

10.

Christie

(2002) Student affairs and conscience formation. In: Estanek

(eds) Understanding Student Affairs at Catholic Colleges and Universities: A Comprehensive Resource, Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, pp. 75–95.

11.

Cliburn Allen

Alleman

(2017) Faith, work, and praxis: A process model of integration for Christian student affairs administrators. Christian Higher Education 16(5): 285–302.

12.

DeFruscio

(2017) The changing role of the athletic director. In: Estanek

Galligan-Stierle

Gilroy

Kirkpatrick

(eds) Student Life in Catholic Higher Education: Advancing Good Practice, Washington, DC: Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities, pp. 129–132.

13.

Estanek

(1996) A study of student affairs practice at Catholic colleges and universities. Current Issues in Catholic Higher Education 16(2): 63–73.

14.

Estanek

(2002) Understanding Student Affairs at Catholic Colleges and Universities: A Comprehensive Resource, Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.

15.

Estanek

Herdlein

Harris

(2011) Preparation of new professionals and mission driven hiring practices: A survey of senior student affairs officers at Catholic colleges and universities. College Student Affairs Journal 29(2): 151–163.

16.

Estanek

Galligan-Stierle

Gilroy

Kirkpatrick

(2017) Student Life in Catholic Higher Education: Advancing Good Practice, Washington, DC: Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities.

17.

Evans

Forney

Guido

Patton

Renn

(2010) Student Development in College: Theory, Research, and Practice (2nd edn), San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons.

18.

Felio

Robinson

(2017) Making mission matter: Recruitment and supervision of mission. In: Estanek

Galligan-Stierle

Gilroy

Kirkpatrick

(eds) Student Life in Catholic Higher Education: Advancing Good Practice, Washington, DC: Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities, pp. 109–112.

19.

Fostner

(2017) The death of a student: Lessons from a Catholic campus. In: Estanek

Galligan-Stierle

Gilroy

Kirkpatrick

(eds) Student Life in Catholic Higher Education: Advancing Good Practice, Washington, DC: Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities, pp. 173–176.

20.

Fowler

(1981) Stages of Faith: The Psychology of Human Development and the Quest for Meaning, New York: HarperCollins.

21.

Glanzer

Ream

(2009) Christianity and Moral Identity in Higher Education, New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

22.

Goodwin

(2017) Faith matters: Supporting students’ religious diversity. In: Estanek

Galligan-Stierle

Gilroy

Kirkpatrick

(eds) Student Life in Catholic Higher Education: Advancing Good Practice, Washington, DC: Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities, pp. 83–88.

23.

Guthrie

(1997) Student Affairs Reconsidered: A Christian View of the Profession and its Contexts, Lanham: University Press of America.

24.

Hengemuhle

(2017) Developing a Catholic culture: Catholic cultural competency as a critical skill. In: Estanek

Galligan-Stierle

Gilroy

Kirkpatrick

(eds) Student Life in Catholic Higher Education: Advancing Good Practice, Washington, DC: Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities, pp. 103–108.

25.

Herrmann

Riedel

(2018) A Calling to Care: Nurturing College Students toward Wholeness, Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press.

26.

Hoogstra

Witte

(2015) Listen, love, learn: Leading people who are different than you. In: Beers

Trudeau

(eds) Making a Difference: Empowering the Resident Assistant, Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press, pp. 99–114.

27.

Ivester

(2012) Beyond building a résumé. In: Davis

Ryken

(eds) Liberal Arts for the Christian Life, Wheaton: Crossway, pp. 167–178.

28.

Ivester

(2015) The role of the resident assistant as a program facilitator: Programming for personal formation. In: Beers

Trudeau

(eds) Making a Difference: Empowering the Resident Assistant, Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press.

29.

James

(2017) A Christian anthropology for student development. In: Estanek

Galligan-Stierle

Gilroy

Kirkpatrick

(eds) Student Life in Catholic Higher Education: Advancing Good Practice, Washington, DC: Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities, pp. 65–68.

30.

Johnstone

(2009) Student affairs reconsidered: A look back, a response to Barry Loy. Growth 8: 52–56.

31.

Keiffer

Van Der Werf

Wood

(2015) More than just getting along: The role of the resident assistant in developing a community. In: Beers

Trudeau

(eds) Making a Difference: Empowering the Resident Assistant, Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press, pp. 104–160.

32.

Keith

Fugitt

(2015) Toward a Lutheran view of student affairs: Developing learned piety in community under the cross of Christ. In: Ashmon

(eds) The Idea and Practice of a Christian University: A Lutheran Approach, St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, pp. 285–304.

33.

Killam

Gingrich

(2011) Sexuality among Evangelical college women. Growth 10: 40–53.

34.

King

(2009) Contributing factors to persistence among African-American and Hispanic students in higher education: A phenomenological qualitative study at a diverse small institution on the east coast. Growth 8: 15–30.

35.

Kirkpatrick

(2017) Catholic hospitality: The foundation for community in Catholic higher education. In: Estanek

Galligan-Stierle

Gilroy

Kirkpatrick

(eds) Student Life in Catholic Higher Education: Advancing Good Practice, Washington, DC: Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities, pp. 79–82.

36.

Loy

(2003) Faith development and student affairs. Growth 3(3): 4–12.

37.

Maher

(2017) Pope Francis: A model of leadership and management at Catholic institutions and a guide for senior student affairs officers. In: Estanek

Galligan-Stierle

Gilroy

Kirkpatrick

(eds) Student Life in Catholic Higher Education: Advancing Good Practice, Washington, DC: Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities, pp. 27–32.

38.

Meyer

Wankel

(2002) Managing a crisis at a Catholic university – Lessons learned and shared: Seton Hall University, South Orange, NJ. In: Estanek

(eds) Understanding Student Affairs at Catholic Colleges and Universities: A Comprehensive Resource, Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, pp. 182–183.

39.

Mogan

(2017) Educating for justice and compassion: Catholic social teaching and the work of student affairs. In: Estanek

Galligan-Stierle

Gilroy

Kirkpatrick

(eds) Student Life in Catholic Higher Education: Advancing Good Practice, Washington, DC: Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities, pp. 139–144.

40.

Morley

Hightower

(2015) The role of a resident assistant as a peer counselor: Knowing your limits and how best to help. In: Beers

Trudeau

(eds) Making a Difference: Empowering the Resident Assistant, Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press, pp. 115–129.

41.

Poorman

(2017) The role of residence hall staff members in the mission of the Catholic university. In: Estanek

Galligan-Stierle

Gilroy

Kirkpatrick

(eds) Student Life in Catholic Higher Education: Advancing Good Practice, Washington, DC: Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities, pp. 37–40.

42.

Reese

(2012) Conversation creates culture: Student development and spiritual formation in the Christian university. In: Balzer

Reed

(eds) Building a Culture of Faith: University-Wide Partnerships for Spiritual Formation, Abilene, TX: Abilene University Press, pp. 155–164.

43.

Riedel

Hoffman

Martin

(2018) Teaching students to care for themselves. In: Herrmann

Riedel

(eds) A Calling to Care: Nurturing College Students Toward Wholeness, Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press, pp. 77–102.

44.

Sanford

(1962) The American College, New York: Wiley.

45.

Shotnicki

Geary

(2017) College student discipline and Catholic identity. In: Estanek

Galligan-Stierle

Gilroy

Kirkpatrick

(eds) Student Life in Catholic Higher Education: Advancing Good Practice, Washington, DC: Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities, pp. 151–156.

46.

Smith

JKA

(2011) Teaching and Christian Practices: Reshaping Faith and Learning, Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

47.

Smith

JKA

(2014) Response by James K. A. Smith, in A review of “Imagining the Kingdom: How Worship Works”. Christian Higher Education 13(2): 152–163.

48.

Taylor

(1989) The Sources of the Self: The Making of a Modern Identity, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

49.

Thomas

Guthrie

(1997) A framework of understanding. In: Guthrie

(eds) Student Affairs Reconsidered: A Christian View of the Profession and Its Contexts, Lanham, MD: University Press of America, pp. 1–13.

50.

Wenger

(1999) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

51.

Williamson

(2018) The impact of monastic practices and spiritual disciplines on student leader development. Growth 17: 50–57.

52.

WoodBrooks

(2017) Character formation and moral development: Creating an intentional framework. In: Estanek

Galligan-Stierle

Gilroy

Kirkpatrick

(eds) Student Life in Catholic Higher Education: Advancing Good Practice, Washington, DC: Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities, pp. 69–74.