I agree with GetReligion that the Times had a good beginning to a story, but then dropped it. The story focuses on the Christian Union, which appears to be an umbrella organization that was just picking up steam as I was leaving YLS. It does kind of veer off toward politics and 'influence' questions, which is unfortunate, though we evangelicals (in our pretty common use of that language) often only have ourselves to blame. Of the several things going with the Christian Union, one is the establishment of study centers on each campus, which seem like great things, though incredibly difficult to keep going and to maintain some ongoing level of fidelity to orthodoxy.
But it hitting the 'influence' theme (and in Christians using it), we miss a stronger (and less threatening) theme of engagement and integration. These are the mission of the Harvey Fellows Program, overlooked (understandably) in the article. There are lots of interesting questions here - both for reporters (who are probably overworked), but also for Christians who engage with these issues (these questions are not original with me)
- How is the language of "reclaiming the Ivy League for Christ" perceived by colleagues and others - isn't "Engaging the Ivy League with Christ" a more appropriate approach?
- How are articles like this perceived by others in the academy?
- Is engagement possible with being co-opted? Or is even that kind of language to 'culture war-like'?
- What should we think of the way in which future financial security was portrayed in Tim Haven's decision to go to medical ? (and this from a lawyer, so the question is directed at myself as much as anyone)
- What about all of those other Christian groups alluded to in the article? and not - like Rivendell at Yale?
Good start, though, but a little more legwork needed.