Love Within the Context of Oppression and Violence
16th September 2011
Written by Dan Oudshoorn
Then the Lord said to Moses, “Go to Pharaoh and say to him, “Thus says the Lord: Let my people go, so that they may worship me.”
~Exodus 8.1
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing compared with love in dreams.
~ Fyodor Dostoevsky
Introduction
In a number of comments related to the opposition that some people on this site have shown to paying George W. Bush to come and speak at a Tyndale-related event, some people (mostly me, eh?) have been charged with acting in an unloving manner – mostly towards Bush but more recently towards Gary Nelson, the President of Tyndale.
Thus, for example, when I was visiting Tyndale’s campus and distributing some information about Bush, one of the students decided not to take a poster from me because, as she said: “I choose love.” Or, to pick another example, in a public call for a protest of Bush’s visit that appeared on the Toronto Media Coop’s website (a call that was cross-posted at this site), one person responded by writing: “How is this LOVE??!!”
The charge of being inappropriately judgmental and trying to do what only God should do (i.e. judge) is usually coupled with the accusation of being unloving. Thus, in a response to a substantial post I wrote demonstrating the disparity between the practices of Bush and the values of Tyndale (which has yet to receive any sort of equally substantial critical response), one disappointed person replied:
Bush’s record shouldn’t be relevant any more than yours or mine, not if you truly believe the words of Jesus… Bush probably has done many awful things, but when were we given the right to cast judgement. You say he is unrepentant, but can you prove that? Yes, he hasn’t repented publicly, but how do you know what the man has done privately with God.
This are just a few examples. Other remarks like these are easy to find, both on our site and in the comment sections related to a number of the articles that have appeared in the media.
Similar remarks have been made about my response to Gary Nelson’s ongoing refusal to directly and unequivocally engage this matter. Apparently, I am being unloving and unlike Christ by putting his actions in context. To do so is said to be “divisive” or “slanderous” or “negative” or even violent and bullying.
What seems to be operating in all of these is a rather superficial and even dangerous understanding of what love is. I believe that everything that has been said and done thus far in this campaign has been done with love not only for those who have suffered because of Bush but has also been done with love for Bush and for Gary Nelson. Allow me to try and explain why this is the case.
Love Within the Context of Oppression
In my second year at Tyndale, Dr. Wafik Wahba introduced me to the writings of the German theologian, Jürgen Moltmann. Within the eight volumes of his systematic contributions to theology, Moltmann often writes on themes of love, suffering, oppression, violence, and solidarity. There is one particular point worth highlighting in relation to our discussion.
Moltmann asserts that the context of oppression is a context that is dehumanizing to both the oppressed and the oppressor. The oppressed are not allowed to live fully human lives because they have their lives, their children, their health, their labour, the fruits of their labour, their land and their property stolen from them. Yet the oppressors also fail to meet their potential as human beings because, by acting in violent and oppressive ways, they become less than they could be otherwise. Therefore, and this is the crucial point so don’t miss it, the cry for justice or repentance is one that offers liberation to the oppressor just as much as it offers liberation to the oppressed. That cry will sound very different depending where one is situated but the same offer is being made.
This is why I opened with the quotation of God calling Moses to tell Pharaoh: “Let my people go!” This injunction is one that offers liberation to Pharaoh just as much as it offers liberation to the Hebrew slaves in Egypt. It is a loving offer to Pharaoh as much as it is a demonstration of God’s solidarity with the oppressed.
The same holds true of any call to hold Bush accountability for his actions. Bush maintains that the crimes he committed were good moral actions, approved by God and he continues to profit from those actions to this very day. This demonstrates his lack of repentance (which, we should remember, in the Greek refers to a changing of the course of one’s actions and not simply making some sort of statement like: “I’m sorry”). To call for justice and liberation in relation to this is not to say that one hates Bush. I don’t hate Bush. This cry is an offer of liberation for him as much as it is a cry that seeks to give life to those who continue to suffer until today because of Bush’s actions and their ongoing impact.1
So, to call Bush a war criminal (an objectively true statement) is not to say that I hate Bush. Yes, Christians are called to love our enemies so I try not to hate anybody – Bush, or Stalin, or Milosevic, or Harper, or Gaddafi, or Osama bin Laden, or Robert “Willie” Pickton, or Paul Bernardo. I trust that any who have stated that we should love everybody would also be quick to profess their love for these people. Right?
Judge Not?
But loving people does not mean refusing to speak honestly or refusing to pursue justice or refusing to hold people accountable. If I change the context a little, perhaps some will gain a bit of understanding as to why doing so is not playing at being God or judging in an inappropriate manner.
Let as imagine that the person invited to speak was not George W. Bush but was one of the people I just mentioned: Paul Bernardo, a convicted serial killer and rapist.2 However, let us also imagine that Bernardo was a professing Christian and was never convicted for his crimes (although he boasted of committed them and the proof was widely documented). This makes Bernardo an “interesting” person and an “historical figure.” Although he may be controversial, some think that it would be good to invite him to speak because, hey, we are called to love, to refuse to judge a person’s past, and so on and so forth.
Does that argument make sense to anybody? I hope not. I imagine that the whole community of Tyndale would be appalled at the idea of extending an invitation to a serial killer and rapist who boasted of his crimes and saw them as divinely mandated. Doing so would undoubtedly result in a negative media focus upon Tyndale and would probably have some repercussions for the institution and its brand status (indeed, the President would probably have to hold a town hall meeting where he might express his disappointment that the school was not yet ready for this speaker…).
Furthermore, to refuse to hold Bernardo accountable would be to act in an unloving manner towards him. Holding him accountable for rape and murder is a means of grace. Ideally, it provides him with the space and resources that he needs in order to recover his humanity and be something other than a rapist and murderer (I say “ideally,” because this is not actually how our justice or penal systems operate today). Thus, one can both love Bernardo and confront him about his crimes.
Context, Context, Context
Why, then, do some have trouble seeing that this is an exact parallel to what has taken place with the invitation that has been extended to Bush?
One possible answer to this question is that the Paul Bernardo example hits closer to home, whereas those who have suffered the most because of Bush are far away and are not white, English-speaking, middle-class Christians (in this regard it was interesting to note that the international students I spoke with at Tyndale universally expressed support for our actions, whereas the the white students who spoke with Canadian or American accents tended to accuse us of being unloving).
Being far removed from the context of suffering tends to lead to apathy and opens the door for other political ideologies to influence that way in which one thinks. This (in part, I suspect) is why the young and impressionable folks at Tyndale are more strongly identifying with the tears of their President than with the monumental loses experienced by people in places like Iraq or Afghanistan.
The Latin American liberation theologians (whom I started reading around the same time as Moltmann) remind us that one’s context is far more determinative of one’s theology or ideology than we like to think. This is why they call us to lived solidarity with the poor and the oppressed as a prerequisite to the doing of theology. I have tried to take that call seriously in my own life. Over the last twelve years I have tried to move into intimate relationships with those who are oppressed and abandoned within our society. I have seen far more human suffering than I ever wanted to see, I have seen the other side of powerful institutions that claim to support us and care for us, and I suspect that this context has been very influential in shaping how I understand the sort of controversy like the one Tyndale generated by seeking to quietly associate itself with Bush.
That some at Tyndale have taken a very different view than my own is probably related more to their context as middle or upper class folks. It’s not that anybody – Bush, Gary, or those who have vented about me on this website – are bad people, it’s just that class-based values and interests appear to have slipped into the terrain of religious practices and discourse. Should people choose to spend a little more time with those who are poor and oppressed, I suspect their views would change. Which wouldn’t be a bad thing—how can one claim solidarity with a crucified Messiah without also pursuing solidarity with the crucified people of today?
Conclusion
I understand that I have mostly focused on the remarks made about Bush and not the remarks made about Gary Nelson. It should be understood that the same trajectory of thought applies: one can call Gary out and seek understanding, and describe how his actions appear to some of us in a critical way… all without feeling any sort of hatred for the man. I don’t know Gary. I’ve never met him or spoken with him (and he seems to want to keep it that way). I can’t say I love him, because I believe that love is only something that is expressed in the context of concrete actions and lived relationships, but I certainly have no ill-will towards him. I wish him all the best, was saddened to hear of his loss… and I hope that he comes to see this cry for justice and understanding as an opportunity for him as much as it is an opportunity for all of us.
In conclusion, I want to reiterate the call to not operate with an understanding of love that permits rapists to boast of raping or permits murderers to boast of killing. Let us not think love is such a shallow fluffy thing that it prevents us from seeking that which is life-giving and opposing that which is death-dealing. That is what it means to follow in the way of Jesus Christ—who was, himself, killed by the imperial powers of his day because of his opposition to their death-dealing practices.
Finally, let us not get too distracted by Gary or by myself to miss the issue at hand: Tyndale sought to gain profits from an event held with a war criminal. Tyndale has now officially withdrawn from the event but has not made it clear that they are not still seeking to gain money based upon a Bush-related event. Some also think that Tyndale has been dishonest about the reason the event was canceled. A simple unequivocal statement of clarification would immediately resolve this matter. It need not come from Gary, it could also come from Tyndale’s Board of Directors or a representative from the President’s office. Until then: “May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all” (1 Cor 13.14). Amen.
1. Of course I know that Bush was not acting alone and of course I know that Obama is just as bad – if not worse – than Bush but Bush was the one whose signature or declaration was needed to initiate the activities I have described elsewhere so he should be held accountable (just as the others should be held accountable, but they are not discussed here because they were not invited to a Tyndale-related event).
2. For the students at Tyndale who may be too young to remember who this is, here’s a quick link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bernardo
Interestingly, I’ve just heard that the cancellation notice on the website was submitted by the donor and host of the event (Prem, I assume) and not by Tyndale at all.
So, evidently, Tyndale themselves has yet to say *anything* about the event.
I trust people who hold a one sided critical view of those who fought to keep George Bush out of Tyndale, will read this.
Dan, I appreciate you taking the time to write out your thoughts and beliefs on this issue. I appreciate the love and mercy you write of for both the oppressed and the oppressor. Unfortunately though, I don’t believe you’ve truly taken the time to listen to and understand the comments being made about some of the content being posted here, and thus, your beautifully written post isn’t really a response to their complaints at all.
Generally speaking, people are not taking issue with the idea of protesting Bush’s presence at this event. Most comments are not trying to excuse Bush’s actions. People are not saying Bush should not be held (at least partially) accountable for his actions, whether it be at the hands of God or men. The idea of holding Bush (and Nelson, or any of us) accountable for his decisions as a way of showing love is not the major point of contention. In fact, I think most of the comments have come from people who didn’t support Bush speaking at this event, and have major issues with his past decision making.
What people have taken issue with is the way you are attempting to hold them accountable, the method in which you are approaching the issue, and the tactics used by some posters on this website to reach their goals. Showing love through judgement does not give free license to attack others through words and unfounded accusations. To not understand that is a very dangerous understanding of what love is.
It’s very difficult to read your words (both in this post and other posts/comments) regarding your past experience with this sort of issue, and get see a huge amount of pride and disdain for anyone who doesn’t agree with your tactics.
You’ve written a very long post trying to define love. I think perhaps you should read the passage found just one book prior to your final scripture, to find a much more compact definition of love to apply to this situation:
1 Corinthians 13: 1-8
If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing. Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.
amen.
Hey J.,
Thanks for this response. A few points:
(1) The intention of my post was not to try and define love. It was to try and demonstrate how what has been occurring in this protest fits within that which is loving. See the difference?
(2) I don’t think anybody has been using this way of thinking in order to “give free license to attack others through words and unfounded accusations.” I think the people on this blog have been quite circumspect and have pretty much stuck to a pretty objective description of events. Of course, it has been hard because Tyndale has completely refused to communicate with us, so I reckon people are doing the best with the cards they have been dealt.
The only thing I can think of that might fit with your statement is when I wrote that Gary “chose” to emotionally manipulate the student body. Perhaps instead of writing with those words I should have said that, regardless of his intentions, what Gary did was emotionally manipulate the students. So I was left with two options: thinking Gary was grounded and intelligent enough to undestand the consequences of his actions or thinking the opposite of that. I kinda felt like believing that he was grounded and intelligent was the better way to go.
Other than that, I think everything has been quite direct but actually fairly gentle. Anything more wishy-washy would have been detrimental to the effort (I’m gonna appeal to experience again on this point).
(3) As for pride and disdain, well, you’re free to think what you want. However, I will say that I don’t at all pride myself on my personal engagement with matters related to serving life and resisting death. Man, I’ve got a long way to go and most of what we have tried has failed to produce good results (pipelines still get built, neighbourhoods still get gentrified, wars still get fought, the poor still get crushed, the First Nations people still have their lands and children stolen…). Not much to be proud of there. Besides, focusing on myself misses the point: when I approach these things, I’m not what matters, what matters are the lives of others.
In terms of disdain, I don’t know how that has been communicated. I haven’t said anything negative about those who chose to withdraw from the petition or those who wanted to employ different tactics than the one’s I think are most effective (in fact, I was willing to go along with some things I thought were less useful in order to act in solidarity with others from different backgrounds). But I’m not going to lie about where I’ve come from — if context is critical for exegesis (y’all read that text by Fee in Hermeneutics 101 don’t you?) then I figure providing a bit of context will help folks to understand what I’m saying. Otherwise, I would actually much rather not talk about myself at all.
Grace and peace.
Oh good, I’m glad J brought the discussion back to teaching each other how to be better Christians, for a second there I was worried that Dan’s post was going to relieve the tensions and deprive me the enjoyment of watching you all bicker. My favourite was Matt Fisch’s comment from Facebook: “you’re absolutely ridiculous and people like you are reasons why people take Christians as jokes. pathetic.” You can’t make this stuff up.
The best part of all of this is that while all of you bash each other with your crosses, you seem to be blissfully unaware that the vast majority of public opinion is: ‘Good for them for stopping Bush, it’s nice to finally see Christians living up to their values.’ Don’t believe me? Go to the CBC or Star article and sort the comments by most favourited. The general public has no clue or interest about all your bickering, they get the snapshot of the event being cancelled, and move onto the next news item. The only reason I noticed and actually cared to read more, is that Dan happens to be my brother.
But for me? I love the bickering, it helps reaffirm me in becoming an atheist.
Love you, too, ding-dong.
I find that driving a focus more and more onto people who speak or write about things (me, in this case) is something folks regularly do (intentionally or not) in order to avoid addressing the actual issue at hand. I mostly ignored the bashing earlier but some folks are trying to engage intelligently and I reckon, shoot, these peeps want to have a conversation, I don’t mind chatting.
Of course, this is one of the problems with a lot Christians (especially those of the Evangelical variety), they get so involved in their insular discussions about doctrine or rhetoric or sacraments or church functions (and what is “the church”?) that they invest so much time and energy into those debates that they end up being useless in the world. What a waste. Come on, people are dying and they’re dying because we are choosing to do nothing about it!
So, yeah, I hear ya on this one. I haven’t always been sure how to respond. Pumped to see you soon!
Ha, all I can say is that Gary must be a better man than me to have held his tongue rather than lash out at you with all of the grief, anger, and pain he must be feeling. You must really think he is a cold-hearted wretch to suggest that he would see the death of a close friend as an opportunity to gain a strategic advantage in some kind of imagined political war. Where is the evidence that Gary or anyone else did anything wrong intentionally?
You asked for the event to be cancelled, and it was. That being the case, the idea that he would respond to your attack before burying his friend is ridiculous. What’s the hurry?
Your analogy of Moses vs Pharoah could use a bit of work. How many chances did God give Pharoah? How many chances did you give Tyndale?
Moses waited for Pharoah to actually respond each time; you became impatient and took silence as a provocation.
When Pharoah’s son was taken, Moses didn’t stand there and cruelly wait for an apology. Even after this event has been cancelled and the slaves have been freed, you dig the knife around and demand that the crimes of your fantastic conspiracy be exposed for all to see.
Justice is vital, but Mercy must be given a chance. God forgive me if by responding I’m guilty of the same.
Tim, thank you for your words!
Dan, you have gone out of your way to make Gary look like a villain. Whatever the original intention of this website, you have made it into a place of hurt and have done far more damage then good. You obviously need a lot of attention and apparently thought this was your best way to get that. what makes you think you have all the ‘right’ answers? grow up.
Dear Dan,
It’s too bad we don’t know each other; I’ve been teaching at the Tyndale Seminary since 2006, and I am a theologian in the historic peace church tradition (Mennonite). I’m sure we would connect at many levels.
I chose to “support” the decision to move forward with a critical encounter/conversation with President Bush. And as I told faculty, we should anticipate a degree of opposition and protest from students, and should welcome this as a sign of life. The church’s peace witness, however, also demands on-going discussion with those with whom one disagrees most. This could have been an opportunity to raise a question, respectfully, even with protests happening outside the hotel.
You mention Moltmann: he was my teacher in Tuebingen, and I joined him in “protest worship services” held at American nuclear arms facilities in Germany in 1989. I have read almost everything he has written, and also translated one of his lectures for him for him to use in a US visit. You also mention Stalin; my grandfather was sent to the gulags by Stalin in 1937, where he also died. My whole adult life has formed by that reality and thinking concretely about the evils of empire. I worked in a congregation in Canada where the man who was responsible for my grandfather’s arrest also worshiped; our families had reconciled. You mention Paul Bernardo too: I grew up literally across the street from the church parking lot where he abducted one of his victims in St. Catharines; it could not get any closer to home. All of this to say, I wish you had a good mentor, with the deep experience of the peace church behind you, to reflect on the reality of evil and how to engage it strategically. I personally think we could have had a very effective witness, with a student “protest worship services” on the street, and a few of us peace theologians in the mix inside. There are different stages in the cycle of violence, and there are different strategies of peace required by different actors at each stage.
Now as the dust is settling around Tyndale, we see how many bridges have been destroyed. It will be much harder for me– just one small example–to voice and share the gift which the peace church can bring to the evangelical /ecumenical table at Tyndale. Also, I have put out an invitation to another very high profile individual (with whom you would likely see eye-to-eye), who I fear will now think twice about accepting; many others in the Tyndale community will likely write him off as another “leftist” or “statist cultural Marxist,” as we were called on TV last night. This is not good; the conversation has been poisoned, and it will take years to heal the divisions. We will have to do much better next time. Remember: look for mentors along the way, not just on paper, but also in flesh and blood! Blessings.
-Arnold Neufeldt-Fast (speaking not on behalf of the institution, but as friend and mentor to all my students across the theological spectrum at Tyndale).
Too bad we didn’t even allow this to happen (Columbia President Lee Bollinger described Mr Ahmadinejad as a “cruel dictator” who denied the Holocaust.):
Iran president in NY campus row
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7010962.stm
Will there also be a petition if Jean Chrétien was invited?
Dan (I’m replying here so that the message doesn’t become too narrow above)
1) I understand you are not trying to define love as a whole, but what you believe to be one of the many aspects of love, correct? My point is that you can’t sit so strongly on one of the many aspects of love (am I okay to apply “does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth” to your post?) and use it to justify ignoring other aspects (in this case, people believe you are not being patient or kind, and that you are keeping a record of wrong and dishonoring others).
2) We’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I have felt many things that have been written (not just by you) have crossed the line and lacked objectivity. Calling into question the motives of a man grieving the loss of a close friend is considered by many to crossing the line. I don’t think I’m going to change your mind here, I was just under the assumption that this post was at least in part a way to answer some of your “critics”, and while a great message on justice as love, I don’t think that many will feel you actually responded to their complaints.
3) You’re an interesting man, Dan. I find your open and self-reflective comments regarding your own imperfections to be inspiring and genuine. And I’m sure you don’t need to hear me say this, but I don’t believe that you’ve failed to show love despite the very apparent presence of loss and suffering in our world. And despite Abe’s comments, I feel no need or desire to instruct you on how to be a “better” Christian. I also do not intend to change the issue by shifting focus to you insulting you (others have, and I don’t agree with their words either). My only intent was to make you aware of the way your words were leading you to being perceived by others, because I believe you do have important messages to share (even if I don’t agree with all of them or their presentation), and I don’t think you would want these perceptions of you to hinder the message. Being completely honest and direct, you have a tendency to add little comments to the end of arguments that are difficult to support. Comments like, “I’m gonna appeal to experience again on this point”. While I don’t doubt you do have experience that leads you to be believe this, effectively this comes across as you saying, “You don’t have to believe me if you don’t want to, but I have experiences that make me right and you wrong”. It diminishes the fact that others have experiences too, most likely different experiences which have led them to different conclusions then you. Whether intentional or not (and I actually suspect not) it gives an air of superiority. Take it as a word of advice. Or don’t. You appear to be a man who believes in the power of words and their power to incite action. I think you may be hurting yourself with some of the presentation of your words. I apologize as I wasn’t very clear in my initial comment regarding pride and disdane, but that’s where I was coming from.
As a side note, you truly have been gracious to all who have stated a desire to withdrawn their names. However, it would appear that many of those names have not physically been removed from the petition part of the website. Whether this is something you have control over, I don’t know, so this is not a criticism of you, just thought I would submit for follow up.
Thank you for your honest dialogue.
Thanks, J. We could continue this conversation some more but I don’t want to divert too much from the matter at hand. I am enjoying chatting, however, so if you want to fire me an email (either you have my address from the material distributed at Tyndale the other night, or you can get your address — or an anonymous account — to me by emailing it to the admin folks at this website and telling them to pass it on [BTW: I don't have any admin access to or control of this site -- I've been submitting articles just like anybody else]).
Alternatively, if you are around Tyndale next Tuesday we could meet in person. I’ve received an invitation to meet with the President on that day, have replied, and am just waiting for the official confirmation (I asked for a public conversation, instead of a private meeting), before I post the official notice about this.
Hey Dan, although I feel that your motives here have merit, your choice of how those motives embodied themselves was far from any such merit.
Sadly, a more appropriate response to Bush coming would have been to open a peaceful discourse amongst the students and faculty at Tyndale – both current and past – to fully explore the themes that you’ve presented regarding Bush. I don’t disagree with you in your claims against Bush, he himself took full candor in revealing his direct orders for things such as water boarding for example – a direct war crime. In my (limited) opinion though, this does not make your actions correct, nor biblical.
A great opportunity to explores these themes, in a peaceful and educated manner, was wasted because of extreme passion. Temperance and understanding would have led to a far better initiative – one where both sides could come together without such activism and polarization. Passion is extremely important, but without temperance it falls prey to extremism – a lens that one should never use to perceive the world, nor our Creator.
That’s my two-cents anyway. Judging from the magnitude of your conviction, I don’t suspect my few words will create any shred of doubt in your mind that your actions were incorrect – and certainly those who enlist arguments of fury and spite against you will only serve to embolden your position – but I ask you to step away from the role you’ve cast yourself in, and honestly pursue if there could have been a more powerful and exploratory method of interaction on this topic. I would hope if you’re honest with yourself, you can see that there were other avenues, regardless of whether the man spoke or not, that could have been so much greater in terms of helping those understand that which you’re trying to express.
From my consideration, I think it would have been fascinating to incorporate this whole event into the daily discourse for the students currently on campus, allow them to interact with what it means to lead with integrity, and explore themes of forgiveness for, and reconciliation with, those who sin against us. Even explore the possibility of allowing the current crop to have some say in how the funds that are raised should be used. Perhaps if the body felt as strongly as you did, a possibility to donate money towards a cause benefiting the Iraqi people would have been in the cards. Wishful thinking? Perhaps. Still, a better avenue I should think.
Greg: thank you. this is one of the best posts i’ve read on this site (though to be fair, there wasn’t much competition – cheap shot, I know). Thanks.
Orko?? Good to hear from you!
Truth be told, I like the sort of approach you recommend but it wouldn’t have been possible with the amount of time we had. If Tyndale had been more transparent about this (they admitted that the planning for this event had been going on for awhile, but people only became aware of it eight days beforehand thanks to the Toronto Star) things could have gone a lot differently.
Instead, given the time constraints, this was the avenue of action we chose to pursue.
I suppose the point I didn’t emphasize was that the goal, from my viewpoint, should not have been to restraint Bush from his Breakfast, nor to reject any funds raised from people who came to hear him speak – but to use it as an opportunity to ask the Tyndale community some VERY important questions. To re-direct the same passion and support that was developed in this petition campaign, into creating said discussions across the whole of Tyndale instead. The themes that this whole situation bring up are just incredible: “what does it mean to live like Christ alongside corrupt people? Are we not all corrupt regardless of the quality or quantity of our sinfulness? What do you do with someone who refuses to acknowledge their actions? should said people be allowed to influence the face or future of Western Christianity, or even worldwide? Where should the line be drawn?” This barely scratches the surface of what is jumping to my mind.
I think I understand that much of the frustrations were developed from the point that this event was not made public, and I don’t doubt that there were measures taken (which certainly leaves a bitter taste on the palette) to keep it private, but I don’t think they were taken so as to acknowledge that they should not be hosting the event – rather a misplaced desire to hold the event without circumvention (human anxiety, and a good measure of mindlessness, to be blamed). This does not make them free of wrong-doing, but I’ll address that in my final paragraph. My belief is that these people thought they were doing the right thing (which they clearly were not), and that the money would greatly benefit the future of the school, making it worth the cloak and dagger.
I don’t believe the money raised could truly be characterized as ‘blood-money’ either. I’m sure that many of the people who would have come to the breakfast would have been ‘Bush loving righties’, but I have to believe that many who would have come would have been quite the opposite. Regardless, the money is theirs to donate, and all for the greater good of God, hopefully, perhaps naively so, would the money have been used. I think it would have been really cool, in light of the event leaking into the public consciousness, to challenge Tyndale to offer some of that money to perhaps help many of the Iraqis that have been made destitute or homeless as a result of the war. Just an example. .
My point is certainly not to criticize your intentions or that which drives your passion for change and social justice, nor is it to suggest that these ideas I’ve imagined would actually have materialized; rather, it’s more to suggest that there were other ways of focusing these energies that could have been more beneficial to everyone. I can’t help but feel that a brief moment to temper passion, and survey what could be possible in this situation, may have been able to pave a better path.
On the flip side, and it’s crucial that the whole of this negative tone of ‘deconstructed potential’ not be placed squarely on you Leftist-Marxys (a joke… maybe a bad one…), but Tyndale certainly must be held accountable for trying to be secretive about the whole affair. They are equally at guilt for how this situation resolved itself, and even more so in many ways. Had they provided open forum in the first place, and implemented many of these ideas I’ve discussed, then it is more likely that any opposition would have had ‘said’ time to react in a more pacified manner. Passion rarely has time to temper itself when it’s back is against the wall. So there most certainly needs to be reconciliation from their end, as Prof. Neufeldt admitted: it occurred to them that there could be a negative reaction to such an event. It shows poor leadership to attempt to sweep that under the rug. It’s chilling to think that this whole event could have proceeded without anyone really knowing about it, and the money spent however the decision makers at Tyndale saw fit. It’s enough to make me want to concede that this current result may actually be the better alternative – but that, still, would not make it the right alternative. If anything, it should be a common ground between both parties to say, look, you screwed up, we didn’t handle it as well as we could have, lets work for reconciliation and see what good we can salvage from the situation.
Again, really just a bunch of thoroughly edited thoughts.