// Home
Tuesday, March 16th, 2010
One of the goals of Christian higher education, and of Redeemer itself, is to shape the minds of its students in a way that changes how they think, criticize, and react to the events around us. Admittedly, we put a great deal of faith into the people at the top, expecting them to find, select, and hire the kind of people who will both challenge what we think, and who will give us the kind of wisdom that comes with a critically thinking, active mind.
I want you to notice something: I used the phrase “critically thinking”. In one of my earlier editorials, I suggested that a critical analysis includes buying into the author (lecturer, or speaker) and his or her point of view, believing what they say, and hashing it out against your own point of view afterwards. In other words, the key component of critical thinking is the thinking part, and not the critical. What I have noticed during my time as Editor-in-Chief is an affinity for negative, gut-reactions from a vocal, but a (hopefully) small segment of Redeemer.
Now, before I get into it, I should mention my own reluctance to address this topic, since it has a lot to do with the direction of The Crown, and it might seem a bit self-serving. What I hope for, instead, is a bit of conversation (thecrown.ca!) about how we interact with each other at Redeemer, and (more broadly) as Christians.
One comment caught my eye after the last issue, and it was attached to an article by Michelle Drew, a member of the administration. Jack Caldwell, the author of the comment, argued that she put very little effort into researching for her article. While he may have a good point, I take issue with his ending sentence: Come on Michelle, do a better job of research, thinking, writing, and presentation, lest you slide into the easy life of bewailing and complaining in vain, for failure to probe the wicked and the real. Helpful? Maybe. Unnecessarily condescending? Definitely.
Another clear example of this phenomenon happened two issues earlier, when The Crown asked for some articles reviewing the lecture by Stephen Lewis. I received one article that was meant to carry some objectivity from our staff reporter, and one thoroughly negative review. I know from speaking with several different people that the actual reaction to Lewis’ talk was quite positive; people were glad to see Redeemer branch out, and were appreciative of the expertise that an “outsider” to the church, the university, and our worldview offered. The less-than-positive review took some serious heat from students and the broader community, and admittedly there were definitely some problems with how this particular article appeared in The Crown, which could have been solved with a more purposeful framing of the article and some editing. However, I believe that Lindeman was expressing an honest point of view that was in need of (at least) some reactive conversation. A conversation which, in an ideal Christian university setting, would recognize the author as a child of God. A commenter might thoroughly disagree with that particular point of view, but out of love for the individual, the university, and the Lord, would express a willingness to guide, prod, and encourage right thinking, rather than accuse, insult, and put-down. As I wrote in a letter to our readership, I completely understand students’ need to distance the student body in general from his point of view, but I just cannot come to grips with the amount of negative, unhelpful comments. It got to the point where one anonymous commenter wrote, “I have to say that I am glad I have left Redeemer, left the awful judgments and hate. I am in the "secular" world, and I feel more love and acceptance here than I ever felt in my years at Redeemer. This article and responses to this article just confirmed for me my wish to not return to Redeemer, nor return to the "church". Instead I am enjoying living a life of love and modeling it after an amazing, radical, and loving God!” This is a pretty strong accusation, and it is one that is certainly not a proper assessment of my experience at Redeemer. Still, if someone who attended our university and who is involved enough to have actually encountered the article comes away with the idea that God is not evident in our conversation, then there must be a problem.
At The Crown, students have a chance to do things differently. The theme for this year has been “the truth shall set you free”, and one of our goals as a student body should be to allow the truth-in-love to be evident in what we write. So, not only should we react and discuss difficult topics respectfully, but we should be making an effort to provide a truthful re-telling of the events here at Redeemer. The Crown allowed for an extra day for submissions in January, the month of Stephen Lewis’ talk, specifically to invite students’ reactions. What we received was clearly only a portion of student opinion, and was not a truthful capture of what the lecture meant for students and the Redeemer community. In this instance, was The Crown truly “the student voice”? Maybe a more telling part of this story is not the comments, reactions, or Lindeman’s article itself, but in what students decide to write about.
The notion of making God audible in the student voice does not mean that the content of our writing should be drastically different. After all, God corrects, disciplines, and rebukes. The key is that he also encourages, nurtures, and guides. We should certainly criticize the message of a guest lecturer, especially if his perspective is outside of what we believe. We should also find a way to extract the truth in his message, and try to learn how we can apply it to our own lives. In other words, we need to show respect for those who review the lecture, those who brought him here (and thought there was something to be learned by hearing him), and for the speaker himself.
It is possible to disagree lovingly. It is possible to detract from and reject an argument completely, and still show love for the originator. If we care to make the effort and think a bit harder, we can write in such a way that others hear God in our written voice.
The Crown reserves the right to edit or remove any comment that:
- is libelous, threatening, obscene, or constitutes hate speech
- directly and deliberately insults other posters
- is promotional or commercial in nature
