letter appearing in the Mast, March 5, 1993, p.14
To the editor:
I enjoyed Phil Nordquist's recent letter in the Mast, in which he responded to a column I had written. Unlike him, I have no desire to stifle debate about the new mission statement. Unlike him, I believe that the editors of the Mast were being exceptionally responsible in printing both my column and his response.
An intelligent debate requires the clear expression of diverse positions (preferably in public and in writing), and journalists perfom their highest calling when they allow that to take place. I strongly encourage all readers to carefully read and analyze all such statements.
Let me demonstrate what I believe to be such careful analysis. Nordquist argues against continuing to classify PLU as a "Christian college" with essentially the following logic.
Some "Christian colleges" are "fundamentalist;" PLU is not fundamentalist; therefore PLU is not a "Christian college." Unless PLU, or whatever school you attended, failed miserably to provide you with logical analytical skills, you should be able to see that his argument is illogical. PLU can be a Christian college without being fundamentalist.
The real question is: do the faculty want PLU to be a Christian college (or university, if you prefer)? If so, let us say clearly that we are a Christian university, and then carefully define what we mean by that. I welcome such an effort (but I am certain that is not what the faculty want).
Nordquist criticizes a statement I made. Here essentially was my logic: the faculty applauded Nordquist's speech; the central message of Nordquist's speech was that PLU is not a Christian college; therefore, the faculty was applauding that message.
He argues that it is absurd to try to say why people applaud. It is possible, of course, that the faculty was applauding because of the way Nordquist combed his hair that afternoon or because they were glad he stopped speaking, but I think my interpretation of the events is a likely one.
Nordquist advocates ignoring the "silly conclusions...in the last several paragraphs of (my) column." Let me focus on one of those "silly" conclusions. I said that if PLU is not a Christian institution, then to be consistent we should get rid of the stone outside the administration building which says that "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge."
Here is my logic: it is true that devotion to the Lord is the source of wisdom; PLU should encourage wisdom; therefore, PLU should encourage devotion to the Lord. The question to Nordquist and the rest of the faculty is: is it true that devotion to the Lord is the source of wisdom? If PLU does not believe that, then get rid of the stone. If PLU does believe it, then say it in the mission statement.
What issue affects PLU faculty, students and staff as importantly as the very mission of the university--the very purpose for its being? How can the editors of the Mast be accused of irresponsibility for assuring that diverse positions are heard on that issue? It is not the editors of the Mast who are behaving irresponsibly.
Glenn Van Wyhe
associate professor of business