The marketplaces of life?
November 21, 2006
Kristin Fryer
It’s something I’ve been thinking about more and more as the number of credits I have left to take dwindles: life after Trinity. As I reflect on the last four years, I feel a lot like Prufrock, wondering, “And would it have been worth it?” After the classes and the papers and the never-ending nights; after the novels, after the coffee cups, after the books that cover every inch of my floor – my education at TWU has been all this and so much more.
“So why do you go to Trinity?” It’s a question I’ve been asked often throughout the last four years, most recently in Winnipeg at a weekend-long Canadian University Press (CUP) conference. The person asking the question was Tony Keller, Managing Editor for Special Projects at Maclean’s magazine.
Keller was actually one of many people who asked me about my reasons for attending TWU. But the question was almost always accompanied by something along the lines of, “Isn’t that the school where you can’t smoke/drink/swear/have sex?” One person, despite my explanation, refused to believe that TWU wasn’t a bible college. Quite a few people were shocked that you could study English at TWU. Another person, who I became friends with over the weekend, said he was quite surprised that I wasn’t a “bible-thumper” or a fundamentalist. My school’s reputation had certainly preceded me.
At the conference, Mars’ Hill put forth a bid to host the 69th annual Western Regional CUP conference. Hosting a conference would have allowed Mars’ Hill to bring a number of reputable journalists, as well as close to 100 university students, to the TWU campus, providing valuable education for students. It would have been an incredible opportunity, both to showcase TWU’s beautiful campus and to connect our students with professionals and with students from other universities.
Throughout the weekend, I campaigned fervently on behalf of Mars’ Hill and TWU. A number of newspapers at the conference supported us, but when all of the representatives from the Western papers voted, we did not win the bid. A few students explained that their newspaper would have voted for Mars’ Hill, had TWU not had a rule against smoking on campus.
That weekend was an exercise in frustration. I spent most of my time confronting people’s misconceptions, and explaining or defending the nature and value of my education. And on the flight home, I began to wonder if attending TWU had been worth it, after all.
I can honestly say that it has been, but not without giving some explanation. I attend TWU because it is an amazing academic institution, that has challenged my thinking and directed my future. The knowledge and friends I have gained are invaluable, and I have met a number of professors and administrators who have positively influenced my life.
Most of all, I go to TWU because it is a university that is not afraid to think critically - about the world and about itself. Consquently, I have been encouraged this year by our president’s openness and willingness to talk with students about university issues and students’ concerns.
At the recent Presidents’ forum, Dr. Raymond remarked that his job is to “promote and guard the university’s ability to talk to itself.” The university, he said, needs to keep educating itself by both affirming and critiquing its policies and practices.
A number of issues were raised at the forum, including tuition, financial aid, and the university’s reputation. The evening concluded with a discussion of community standards and, more specifically, the accountability process at TWU. The issue of accountability is certainly not new; two years ago, Sarah Weigum and I wrote an article that told the stories of four students who felt that they had been treated unfairly during the process (“Accountability,” Vol. 8, Issue 9).
This issue of Mars’ Hill, the accountability process is once again being called into question (see “Students treated differently,” News, pg. 5). The recurrence of this issue demonstrates that it is not going to disappear, nor can it be ignored. If the university is serious about talking to itself and critiquing itself, it must be willing to genuinely consider and address students concerns and suggestions on the matter.
I am not encouraging the creation of an “us versus them” situation that would pit students against the administration, and vice versa. Rather, I am proposing that we be willing to open the channels dialogue and to change in areas where it is required.
Now you go...
7 Responses to “The marketplaces of life?”
Got something to say?
You say in the opening paragraph you aren’t a “fundamentalist.” So does that mean you don’t believe in the “fundamental” tenets of the Bible?
Also, I think it’s kind of sad that in the reasons you list for attending TWU, that you don’t mention your Christian faith and desire to live out for Jesus or anything like that.
As for that list of stuff that people think we can’t do…so what? One doesn’t have to be judgemental…just say something like “The Bible calls us to live a certain way and according to a certain moral code. It doesn’t say we can’t have sex, but just that we should do so responsibly.”
Christians are not supposed to live exactly like the ‘world.’
Jesus Himself said something along the lines of “If the world hates Me, it will hate you [Christians] too.” So I figure, if the world thinks we’re a bunch of Christian wackos, that can’t be all bad.
I pray I’m reading you wrong somehow though. It’s just that as someone who considers himself a “fundamentalist” Christian, some aspects of your article worried me.
My question in response is, first, whose “fundamental” tenets of the Bible are you referring to? The Catholics? The Baptists? The evangelical protestants? Yours?
I have difficulty with your question because I do not know which interpretation of the Bible you refer to.
As for my not mentioning, specifically, my faith in my description of why I attend TWU–my plan to live out my faith is a given; it’s not dependent on which institution I attend.
There is no simple way to respond to your next comment. But I’d like to begin by explaining that what disturbs me most about this view that people outside of TWU have of us, is that this view tends to be the only view they have of us.
Second, I challenge the notion that the community standards are the “certain way” in which the Bible calls us to live; the Responsibilities of Membership themselves even admit that they are not the definitive interpretation of how we should live. They state, and I quote:
Finally, I don’t believe the world hates Christians–I think most have an apathetic indifference towards us. They see much of Christendom as a limping, archaic, reason-hating institution, polarized by disagreements within the faith.
Nevertheless, being opposed by the world is not exclusive to Christians. Paedophiles, for example, are generally despised. Experiencing persecution is not tantamount to God’s approval.
I realize these remarks but scratch the surface. Further comments are certainly invited.
I’d like to clear something up, just out of curiosity:
How do you define “fundamentalism”? How would you define a “fundamentalist”?
Perhaps if we can come to agreement on terms, we can have better dialogue.
BTW, thank you for responding.
Perhaps it would have been helpful if I had put the word in quotations in the article. In this article, I used the word “fundamentalist” in the sense that the person I quoted was using the word–to generally denote religious extremists. Current definitions of the word support this understanding of the word (see www.dictionary.com).
Part of the dictionary.com definition I found was: “strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles.”
The way I’ve seen it is that a “Christian fundamentalist” and a “Christian extremist” are two different things. A fundamentalist holds to the central tenets of his faith. An extremist is willing to go outside those bounds IMO.
For example, the Bible says do not murder. A Christian fundamentalist will likely oppose abortion on that ground. A Christian extremist will go further and try to blow up abortion clinics.
I think that you’re going to have to relax on this one Chris; Kristin is not trying to deny the essential aspects of the Christian faith (orthodoxy) in her refusal to be labeled as ‘fundamentalist’. It seems to me that she is merely attempting to distance herself from a certain stream of North American Christianity that currently has that label and, in the minds of many, has done nothing but alienated a great number of people from the gospel message. In what way is there a need to refer to oneself as a fundamental Christian? If you are a Christian, according to the traditionally accepted definition (holding to the the rule of faith, the apostolic creed, et cetera), then what need is there to add the tag of fundamentalist, especially if that term is quite tainted in the minds of the secular world. I checked out the definitions given on dictionary.com and also found this one:
1) “A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.”
The problem that I personally have with the label ‘fundamentalist’ is that the fundamental principles that are rigidly adhered to have typically not been fundamental ones at all: pre-millenial eschatology, verbal plenary inspiration (or another somewhat less strict form of inerrancy), a literal reading of Scriptures (in opposition to the traditional/historic understanding, especially when it suits a particular cause), and seperation from the world. Often what’s left for the world to deduce of ‘fundamentalists’ is that they are characterized by intolerance of other views (and often of others). But I am generalizing here.
Whatever the case, we can argue over semantics, but really, that will get us nowhere. I believe that Paul’s words to Timothy may be helpful here: “But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife”. Peace and blessings.