letter printed in the Mast, February 26, 1993, p.7
To the editor:
The remarks of Professor Glen [sic] Van Wyhe in the Feb. 19 edition of the Mast were more mean-spirited and filled with more errors, confusion and hyperbole than anything you have printed for a long time. Why did you print such a piece?
The remarks I prepared for the faculty meeting on Feb. 12 about the mission statement were carefully prepared to provide historical background and appropriate context as well as to explain the carefully nuanced reasoning and the themes that are present in the document.
Professor Van Wyhe bulldozed his way through the mission statement and my remarks, and willfully extracted what he wanted to find. Unfortunately, in almost every instance he was wrong. The column was so tendentious I hardly know where to begin, but I will start with the first paragraph.
I explained at some length and with great care that PLU should be understood as a "church-related" university--not "college"--in the Lutheran tradition, not as a Bible college, or a convent, or a seminary. That is the language most Lutheran institutions are now using to explain themselves, and it is the language the Division of College and University Service of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is using as well. Both the mission statement and the historical sketch that will precede it in the university catalog explain at length what that means.
"Christian college" has served the institution well over the years--even though it can be theologically and educationally misleading--but it is increasingly being appropriated by institutions that are often fundamentalist and have a very narrow and constrained intellectual understanding of themselves; many of them require "loyalty oaths" from their faculty and staff as well.
The mission statement committee was determined to avoid confusion about these matters. We thought "church-related" was preferable and would be helpful in all kinds of ways as we deal with questions and perceptions of identity. To infer from this usage that Christianity is being eliminated from PLU is quite simply absurd.
It is also absurd to conclude that the faculty applauded because of what I said about "Christian colleges." Applause did not erupt at that point in my remarks anyway; it happened at the conclusion and how can one know for sure--intuitively?--why a complicated and independent group of people breaks out in applause?
I thought it was a thank-you to the committee for producing a fair, balanced and appropriate document that can bring us into the 21st century. In my heart, I also hoped that it was because I had been honest and persuasive. I try to be both honest and persuasive when I speak and write.
Jesus was not left out of the document either as the column's headline screams; nor was there only "gratuitous" mention of Him. The climactic fourth paragraph is both clear and effective and it also underscores the need for constant dialogue between Church and university about faith and reason.
Martin Luther's distinction between the "right" and "left" hands of God and his dialectical theology provide the foundation for paragraph four and for that dialogue. This inclusion of dialogue is a distinct advance over the former statement of objectives.
I won't deal with the silly conclusions that are drawn in the last several paragraphs of the column. Overheated rhetoric substitutes for reality in them. In those paragraphs, mischief results from the absence of facts and the careless use of language, but nothing else. That mischief is unfortunate as this community addresses the multiple crises assaulting higher education in the late 20th century. We need to use our wits in more helpful and creative ways.
Finally, I am very curious about the editorial policy of the Mast. The text of the mission statement was not printed in the Feb. 19 edition nor was there a news story about what happened at the faculty meeting (the vote supporting the statement was unanimous).
The committee was not allowed to speak, but a factually misleading and tendentious editorial did appear. If your policy is to mislead and be controversial, you succeeded wonderfully. If it is to be fair and objective, you certainly did not.
Philip Nordquist
Professor of History