Tags
Related Posts
Share This
Reconstructing faith
Two men were walking down a road and were confronted with a wall. It seemed to extend eternally to the left and right, and even vertically. The first man looked at the second and said, “There is no way forward, we must turn back.” The second man smiled and declared that he would go on. After shaking his head at the folly of the second man, the doubter turned around. The second man knew he could not advance forward directly, so he began to follow the wall. Many years later he found a small gate, and could again move forward.
There has recently been a silent theological shift at Trinity Western University. Without the knowledge of the majority of students, the Board of Governors has changed the statement of faith that TWU faculty are required to sign. The Bible is now to be regarded as the “verbally” inspired word of God.
Last year, an article in the Mars’ Hill critiqued the fact that professors at Trinity were good at deconstructing students’ faith, but that little was done for reconstruction. Sentiments like this sparked discussion among faculty and decision makers at the university. But will the purpose of Trinity Western University be to create converts or disciples?
In the recent forum entitled, “Is Trinity Western still an Evangelical University?” professors from our religious studies department debated the kind of environment that defines TWU. Dr. Kent Clarke pointed out that “the revised faith statement moves beyond historical evangelicalism and argues that the Bible is to be understood as the ‘verbally’ inspired word of God…[With] the inclusion of this single word, Trinity Western University has moved outside of evangelicalism.”
To teach such a narrow view of Christianity is an attempt to make converts, not disciples. From Calvin Townsend’s POLS 101 assertion that “Ham had sodomized his father Noah,” to long thoughtful conversations over coffee with friends, university has not been about Sunday school answers. When I came to Trinity I had just come off a summer of heavy drinking and was addicted to gambling. The mentorship of a number of professors contributed in changing that. I will be leaving for the LLC next semester with firm convictions with regards to my faith, both in practice and intellectually.
The claim that TWU deconstructs the faith of its students is only one side of the story. To be sure, Trinity does not create Christian converts. After taking classes on biblical criticism and philosophy, it is impossible to continue believing things blindly. Trinity is attempting to create is intelligent and thoughtful Christians.
Jesus did the same with his disciples. Whereas the Jewish leaders of his day simply preached a religion of strict rules and unyielding belief, Christ taught his disciples the mystery of life. Many were unwilling to follow him because of some of the truths he presented. The professors at Trinity do the same; they do not sugar-coat the truth to undergrads. St. Paul declared that Christians must “work out their salvation with fear and trembling,” and Christ gave numerous references to the fact that the Christian walk was difficult and would not always make sense.
Professors at Trinity are simply being honest with their students, showing them that Christian faith is not simple. Blind belief only breeds fanatical converts. The questioning inspired by Trinity professors creates thoughtful Disciples of Christ.
Great article Parker, thanks for your thoughtful and open comments. From my experience at TWU your side of the story is the norm in regards to professors and classes at TWU.
On another note, I’d like to see you write a similar story about the conservative party of Canada and how they only breed fanatical converts rather than disciples.
So the article to which you are referring would indeed be mine, “Deconstruction without Reconstruction: Trinity’s Greatest Strength and Greatest Weakness.” I have meant to write a follow-up article, but unfortunately never got the pen to paper.
My sentiments have changed quite a bit from last year, and I actually agree with all that you have said. The onus is not to be blamed on the professors – maybe partially, but not to the extent that I expressed last spring. I think it has a lot more to do with the time-frame in which we live, one where people can’t keep up with all the scholarship, all the technology, all the ways in which our world is changing and so feel like what they know of the world is, in a sense, falling all around them.
However this sort of “shift” is especially emphasized within the university, in textbooks and in classrooms, and by professors – all of which discuss the passing of the “old” ways of doing things. When it is ALL you are exposed to in many classes for 3 years, it can be quite disheartening and depressing…and hence the writing of my article. What I have found/heard from this semester and last, is that professors (RELS profs, in particular) have become more personable within their lectures and more sensitive to the effects their teachings may have on students…I wish I had that in my first 3 years, it would have changed things quite a bit.
What warmed my heart again was getting out of the theories, and getting out of the scholarly debates. It was having many, many discussions with friends, family, students, and professors, and for me, it was especially about “being the change I want to see in this world” and starting to volunteer a lot more with causes that inspired me. It keeps everything in perspective.
Personally, I still wouldn’t necessarily call myself a Christian, but I wouldn’t consider myself to be an agnostic either. I would not say I am on an, “existential hamster wheel,” as I was last spring. I am more in flux and open to whatever life experience may bring, but I am okay with that. Reconstruction is a natural process, it likely will not take place in my 3rd or 4th year of university. However I do think the 4th year of university has a gracious way of adding perspective to things you do not see in the 3rd or 2nd or 1st, and for that I am grateful. Otherwise, I obviously wouldn’t be writing this right now.
I do not doubt that you and Caleb are the majority or the “norm” of the TWU experience, however I know many university students who had, or have, the same sentiments as me, and so I speak on behalf of them.
PEACE.
Katie Clogg
@ Katie Clogg or your 5th year at that =P
My issue with the RELS department is that students come in to RELS 101 and 102 expecting a class on the Bible, but what they get an intro to textual criticism, and it leaves them pretty confused. If they want to teach intro to textual criticism, then they should call the course that.
I guess that is just an example of professors struggling with TWU not being ready for the to “come out of the closet” by announcing that they tow the evangelical/fundamentalist line.
typo correction: that they DON’T tow the evangelical/fundamentalist line
David, I don’t think its the RELS department’s fault for not identifying the content of RELS 101/102 as textual criticism. Its the students responsibility to be familiar with the content of the course they are taking. For example, the academic calendar gives these descriptions for 101/102:
RELS 101: An introduction to the major divisions of the Old
Testament (Pentateuch, Prophets, and Writings), including
an orientation to the following areas in the field of Old
Testament studies: inspiration, principles of interpretation,
canon, text, world of the Old Testament, historical
backgrounds, archeology, theology, criticism, literary forms,
and apocryphal writings.
RELS 102: An introduction to the major writings of the New
Testament (Synoptic Gospels, Pauline, and Johannine
Writings), including an orientation to the field of New
Testament studies in the same areas as under RELS 101.
Seems to me they covered their bases there. Students getting confused by 101/102 and having a crisis of faith as a result is symptomatic of church-wide problems (though its not just the church’s fault, the academy has issues too)