A Seat at the Table: Affective Formation and United Methodist Higher Education

Abstract

The increasingly pronounced distinction between educational institutions that retain their ecclesial identity and those that jettison religious commitments reflects a bifurcated educational landscape in which institutions are characterized either as a “church-related” or a “Christian college and university.” This development can be understood as the emergence of separate tables around which disparate conversations exist among those who identify themselves according to the terms of each tradition.

James K. A. Smith's Cultural Liturgies series emerges from the Christian college and university tradition and has introduced affective formation into the parlance of contemporary conversations related to Christian higher education. Although United Methodists traditionally identify their higher education institutions as church-related colleges and universities, the Wesleyan theological commitment to forming holistic affections displays theological resonance with contemporary conversations about affective formation. Rereading Smith's account in light of a Wesleyan understanding of affective formation illustrates the continuity between Wesleyan theological commitments and contemporary discussions about affective formation while also expanding Smith's account in distinct ways. Doing so demonstrates the illuminative potential of intellectual engagement across institutional and disciplinary lines and provides a model for similar engagement within the bifurcated landscape of higher education.

The argument suggests that United Methodists should not only have a seat at the table of contemporary conversation about affective formation, but that they can learn much from the conversation. Prescriptive conclusions follow for United Methodists and for all communions based on this reanalysis of affective formation and the United Methodist theological tradition.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Special thanks is due to Dr. Randy Maddox for his guidance and review, both of which contributed significantly to the final form of this article.

Notes

Acknowledging the critiques of Marsden's secularization thesis offered by several authors, this article solely applies Marsden's conceptual categories. For a summary of critiques, see Ream and Glanzer (2007, pp. 21–25).

Rankin (2013) also offers a threefold typology consisting of “secular state schools, confessional Christian schools, and religiously affiliated, but not confessional (often called ‘non-sectarian’) schools” (p. 1).

Although I largely depart from Higton's (2012) logic, this article could also be read as an analysis of secularity. Whereas Higton begins, “This is a book about universities, and specifically about secular universities: universities that owe no explicit present allegiance to any Christian church or other religious group, and that do not knowingly encourage theological contributions to their policy discussions” (p. 1), I locate my inquiry within what may traditionally be considered the nonsecular. However, as Benne's (2001) typology suggests, to immediately divorce my inquiry from Higton's is to miss a key characteristic of religiously affiliated colleges and universities, namely, that they are simultaneously impinged by secular and sacred influences.

I am indebted to Randy Maddox for this insight and metaphor.

Bernstein (2002) expresses a similar sentiment in his commitment to “engaged fallibilistic pluralism” (p. 151).

Wolterstorff (1993) calls Kuyper “the spiritual eminence” (p. 269) behind Calvin College.

The titles of Wolterstorff's Educating for Responsible Action (1980) and Educating for Shalom: Essays on Christian Higher Education (2004) similarly suggest the development of Wolterstorff's thought toward a more holistic educational model.

Beyond Integration? was published after Smith's more expansive work on this subject, Desiring the Kingdom, yet Smith notes that the content for this chapter originated as a talk at Indiana Wesleyan University (p. 44). Accordingly, this essay presents Smith's chapter from Beyond Integration? first.

See Aukerman, Leclerc, and Maddix (2011).

Smith (2009) also uses Augustine as an interlocutor (pp. 17–18, fn. 2).

The Latin plural form of habitus is written identically but pronounced with a long u (habitūs).