I wrote the following as my final essay for my author studies class of C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien. I've incorporated the suggestions my professor made (mostly removing unnecessary citations) and thought I'd post it for you readers on the interweb. Let me know what you think, LotR fans!
One of the most dynamic characters the reader encounters in The Lord of the Rings is that of Aragorn, son of Arathorn. There are two senses in which this character develops throughout the series, the first being a sort of traditional character growth, most of which had already taken place well before the founding of the fellowship, and the second resembling more of an unveiling of the character to his companions, which takes place over the year or so from when he meets the hobbits to when he is crowned King of Gondor. Naturally, the two developments are related to one another, but the distinction is fairly significant, and becomes apparent if one realizes that much of Aragorn's development takes place long before he met Frodo and the Hobbits in Bree, and is recorded after the closing lines of the novel in its appendices.
Aragorn, we learn in Appendix A of The Lord of the Rings, began his life under a false name with no knowledge of his true kingly lineage. He spent his first twenty years under the name Estel, or “Hope.” Little is said of this time, except that Elrond came to love him as a son, and that the period ended when Aragorn “returned to Rivendell after great deeds in the company of the sons of Elrond; and Elrond...saw that he was fair and noble and...would yet become greater in body and in mind.” At this point, Elrond rewarded Aragorn with his true name, true heritage, and many—though not yet all—of the heirlooms of his house. Shortly thereafter, Aragorn first sees Arwen, the daughter of Elrond, and falls immediately in love with her. This is perhaps the only brash action which is attributed to Aragorn, who throughout the novel itself makes every decision cautiously and thinking heavily of the consequences. However, even if Aragorn did not think fully through the repercussions of his love, he did stick by his decision, demonstrating even from an early age a genuine sense of commitment.
There are two major spans of time between Aragorn's first loving Arwen and his appearance in The Fellowship of the Ring. The first is a space of about thirty years, after which Arwen sees Aragorn come into his own and strong (not to mention clad in Elvish clothes). Though we are not told all of Aragorn's deeds in this time, we can gather from chronologies that it was in this time that he met and befriended Gandalf, and that he served both the King of Rohan and the Steward of Gondor in disguise. We learn four attributes of Aragorn's character from these facts. First of all, he keeps high company, since he manages to befriend a member of the Maiar. Secondly, though he knows his high birth and has been given such tokens as could prove his rank, he chooses to still serve until the time is right for his ascension. Thirdly, though he serves, he offers no one his allegiance, or else he would not have served two rival, though friendly, kingdoms of men. Fourth and finally, he has learned well the value of secrecy, following Elrond's lead in hiding his heritage. Arwen, seeing these changes in him, falls in love with him and the two commit to faithfulness to one another.
After receiving Arwen's pledge of love, Aragorn again turned to traveling and adventuring. He spent the next thirty-eight years protecting the North as a Ranger, taking time for such individual tasks as hunting and jailing Gollum, before meeting with the hobbits in Bree. At some point in this period, he also met Bilbo, and began his friendship. It is likely from this friendship that Aragorn learned to appreciate hobbits. This period more or less solidifies Aragorn's kingly nature, and the majority of his development after this point is the unveiling of which I spoke earlier.
When Aragorn first meets the hobbits, he is not trusted, having all but completely hidden his goodness beneath a rough exterior. Butterbur, who has seen him many times, mistrusts him and warns the Hobbits to avoid him out of genuine concern. He appears, at first, merely a gruff man of the wilderness, skilled in fighting and perhaps in hunting, but with few other attributes certain. After Frodo is stabbed at Weathertop, however, he shows himself also to know something of healing, even if it is only enough to slow the effect of the Nazgûl's blade until they could reach Elrond in Rivendell. He continues to quest throughout the world after they reach Rivendell, and reveals his true identity to more companions as they set out to destroy the Ring. But the next significant unveiling is that he was wiser even than Gandalf in at least one sense: he knew tragedy would befall the Fellowship if they travelled through Moria, and for lack of regard for his counsel, Gandalf was lost. However, this is also what forces the next change in Aragorn—whereas before he was able to rely on his wise friend for leadership, now he was forced to take his place as a true leader. Where at first he is hesitant, pulled by alternating desires, he ultimately makes a bold decision and begins to use his inborn authority to lead.
Aragorn, in leadership, continues to reveal his name at need, in such cases as when Éomer demands the company identify themselves in Rohan. When Gandalf returns from the dead, Aragorn yields leadership back to him, not so much out of reliance, as he apparently did at first, but more out of respect. When they must part ways next, Aragorn does not bemoan their fate. Indeed, very little is said of Aragorn at all, whose dialog is sometimes recorded even without a hearer. I would therefore consider it reasonable to say that he was entirely at peace with the parting.
Once Gandalf has departed, Aragorn takes possession of the palantír and takes it from Sauron's control, showing that he, unlike Saruman, could not only withstand but overpower the will of the Dark Lord. From this point on, few of his choices are really developments or unveilings for the reader, only the natural actions of a man who knows that the times are grim and his destiny is high. Even in his decision to rally the dead army and his decision to ride, perhaps to his death, against the gates of Mordor, seem in keeping with the man we have met already. After the victory, he seeks a sign by which to claim his rightful kingship and his queen, but he himself is already ready for this, it cannot be called “change.” The only real change that remains in him is long after the events concerning the Ring are over—in his final days, Aragorn chooses to meet his end as he grows weary, not staying even for his love for Arwen. This is the final and most important change, as it allows him to return to the legacy of his forebears, not only men of Gondor, but the mighty Númenoreans as well.
Showing posts with label Malone University. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Malone University. Show all posts
Monday, May 18, 2009
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
A Response to the Administration's Spin
In a recent issue of the Aviso, Malone University's newspaper, one of the administration whom I will call “Dr. S” addressed the concerns about the changes in Malone's admissions requirements. But very little of what he said sounded even possible to my ears, let alone true. I am so disturbed by the most recent article that I felt a response was not only in order, but absolutely necessary. This is a mildly revised version of my response, going play by play through Dr. S's article.
I'd like to begin by dealing with an ungrounded claim in Dr. S's first paragraph, which was also copied and had attention drawn to it as a particularly relevant quotation: “Please know that the leadership of Malone is committed to preserving and strengthening standards, quality and relationships.” This sounds very nice. My only problem with it is that it is in response to concerns that the admissions standards and thereby quality of academic achievement of Malone have been lowered and thereby weakened. I feel that I show in this response how the new system reduces the relationship potential of Malone admissions.
Dr. S first defends the new admissions standards by saying that the scholarships were not competitive, “were not distributed more broadly to our incoming students,” and that the school was “lagging behind in the timing in which we would make our scholarship awards.” Dr. S never defines what he meant by timing, but that is a minor issue. He only points out that “Now, every student that meets our admissions requirements will receive some form of... scholarship or grant.”
For those of you who don't know, the word “scholarship” comes from “scholar,” and refers to an amount of money awarded to students who excel in scholastic endeavors. To give a scholarship to everyone defeats its purpose, especially if done on an institutional level—after all, it would save a considerable amount of red tape if Malone simply cut tuition by the relevant amount for everyone, and this would not cheapen the word “scholarship” by broadening it out. I have no issue with grants being given to any student, but again, if you are going to give the money to everyone, it is much smarter to just cut the tuition.
Dr. S's second point is that the application pool has been redistributed among the admissions counselors according to the students' surnames instead of their geographic region. This is designed to broaden the focus of admissions, but will also have the negative effect of cutting down admissions relationships with particular regions.
Dr. S went on to say how Malone now receives a wider pool of “ethnic and geographic diversity.” He claims that both have been hindered by the smaller applicant pool, and that now we receive applications from students that will do well in college. This is quite possible—they may do very well. However, if they are admitted due to lower admissions standards, then many in this group will do less well than those admitted on the previous admissions standards. Not to mention, the claim that lowering the admissions requirements will allow more ethnic diversity at Malone does not strike me as the most appropriate of statements.
The next point Dr. S makes is that “one other impact of setting this new admissions requirement is related to college readiness.” He goes on to explain that these lower standards are still enough to project that the students will achieve a probational status GPA. That is ridiculous. We should not be aiming for probational students. Malone should certainly be admitting some probational students, but the general admissions standards should strive for excellence, not adequacy.
Dr. S's last point is that the new recruitment standard will be more aggressive and will be streamlined. The only specifics he mentions are eliminating brochures. I have no issue with this, it is one example of smart use of resources (although the majority of this claim is left unexplained, and I would have liked more information).
In his closing remarks, Dr. S reminds us of our Presidents words to “begin with the end in mind.” The end, for Dr. S in this article, is “to increase residential population, provide competitive scholarships, and strengthen our academic programs.” I have shown in this article that I do not believe the new standards accomplish this goal. But what is more importantly, we should focus less on academics, and more on what Malone claims is its continuing commitment: Christ's Kingdom First.
I'd like to begin by dealing with an ungrounded claim in Dr. S's first paragraph, which was also copied and had attention drawn to it as a particularly relevant quotation: “Please know that the leadership of Malone is committed to preserving and strengthening standards, quality and relationships.” This sounds very nice. My only problem with it is that it is in response to concerns that the admissions standards and thereby quality of academic achievement of Malone have been lowered and thereby weakened. I feel that I show in this response how the new system reduces the relationship potential of Malone admissions.
Dr. S first defends the new admissions standards by saying that the scholarships were not competitive, “were not distributed more broadly to our incoming students,” and that the school was “lagging behind in the timing in which we would make our scholarship awards.” Dr. S never defines what he meant by timing, but that is a minor issue. He only points out that “Now, every student that meets our admissions requirements will receive some form of... scholarship or grant.”
For those of you who don't know, the word “scholarship” comes from “scholar,” and refers to an amount of money awarded to students who excel in scholastic endeavors. To give a scholarship to everyone defeats its purpose, especially if done on an institutional level—after all, it would save a considerable amount of red tape if Malone simply cut tuition by the relevant amount for everyone, and this would not cheapen the word “scholarship” by broadening it out. I have no issue with grants being given to any student, but again, if you are going to give the money to everyone, it is much smarter to just cut the tuition.
Dr. S's second point is that the application pool has been redistributed among the admissions counselors according to the students' surnames instead of their geographic region. This is designed to broaden the focus of admissions, but will also have the negative effect of cutting down admissions relationships with particular regions.
Dr. S went on to say how Malone now receives a wider pool of “ethnic and geographic diversity.” He claims that both have been hindered by the smaller applicant pool, and that now we receive applications from students that will do well in college. This is quite possible—they may do very well. However, if they are admitted due to lower admissions standards, then many in this group will do less well than those admitted on the previous admissions standards. Not to mention, the claim that lowering the admissions requirements will allow more ethnic diversity at Malone does not strike me as the most appropriate of statements.
The next point Dr. S makes is that “one other impact of setting this new admissions requirement is related to college readiness.” He goes on to explain that these lower standards are still enough to project that the students will achieve a probational status GPA. That is ridiculous. We should not be aiming for probational students. Malone should certainly be admitting some probational students, but the general admissions standards should strive for excellence, not adequacy.
Dr. S's last point is that the new recruitment standard will be more aggressive and will be streamlined. The only specifics he mentions are eliminating brochures. I have no issue with this, it is one example of smart use of resources (although the majority of this claim is left unexplained, and I would have liked more information).
In his closing remarks, Dr. S reminds us of our Presidents words to “begin with the end in mind.” The end, for Dr. S in this article, is “to increase residential population, provide competitive scholarships, and strengthen our academic programs.” I have shown in this article that I do not believe the new standards accomplish this goal. But what is more importantly, we should focus less on academics, and more on what Malone claims is its continuing commitment: Christ's Kingdom First.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Truth and Lies - Part I
What should you do when someone you respect makes an obvious mistake? Do you write it off as a fluke, or tell them about it? If they continue to make this same mistake, would you be cowed by the fact that you hadn't said anything before, or would you decide that they've crossed a line the second, third, or fourth time?
I respect the editor of the Aviso, Malone University's newspaper. She is a fine woman with a good sense of journalistic integrity. In this year's first issue, she stated her commitment "to cover Malone news accurately, truthfully, and responsibly."
To a degree, she has accomplished this. The Aviso has accurately reported many stories. But there are some points in which they have stopped short. Particularly, when the administrators say something, the Aviso has not, this year, questioned that statement. Before I go on, I in no way insinuate that any deceit is going on in the case of the individual administrator who was quoted by the Aviso, or in the Aviso staff. I only contend that falsehoods were spoken, and make no accusations as to where the falsehoods began and who was under the impression that they were or were not true.
Even in the same first issue in which the Editor dedicated herself to reporting the truth, a story ran about a campus beautification project. Many students were upset that picnic tables were being taken away for the more "aesthetically pleasing" benches, but my concerns were elsewhere: the Aviso reported that "The gazebo," a structure formally located near one of the dorms, "was structurally unsound and was eliminated over the summer." (Emphasis mine). I will tell you, dear readers, this is a lie. First, the gazebo was not structurally unsound. I have spoken with one of the workers responsible for the demolition. Asked about its structural integrity, the anonymous worker said, "It was fine. It just didn't fit in with the current...design. It was torn out for the sake of a proposed road that may be built later." He continued, "In fact, it was quite difficult to take apart." Another reason students believe (but the Aviso did not report) that the gazebo was torn down was that students were fond of using this semi-secluded spot for "make-out sessions." The reason I suspect that the administration claimed the gazebo was unsound is that they could not claim it was unaesthetic, like the picnic tables and could not admit publicly that students used it for romantic rendezvous. Everyone knows it, but no one will own up to the fact. I have heard, though I cannot confirm, that the gazebo had been payed for by a previous graduating class as a class gift. If this is so, it was also necessary to claim the gazebo was unsound for the sake of its demolition because any other reason (like a through-road) to tear down a class's legacy would be met with intense disapproval, to put it lightly.
The problem continued in the third issue of the Aviso, where they reported that class integration of the upperclassmen and freshman dorms was intentional. This is, in fact, what many of the administrators said. It is also a lie. At the end of each school year, returning students may request to keep their room in the freshman dorms. Over the past several years, more and more students have been doing this for the sake of "community" or, in the case of many girls, to avoid being stuck with a room in the dorm furthest from their classes. This increased to the point that the upperclassman residence halls could not be filled with only upperclassmen. Also, Malone continues to admit more students (particularly more men) than they can adequately house. Since Malone has strict rules about who may live off-campus, more upperclassmen were asked to live off campus to make room for all the freshmen now in need of rooms. I was asked to do so the past two years, and flatly declined. Because of upperclassmen refusing to move on from their freshman halls, and Malone's insistence on admitting more students every year, the dorms have become mixed. This was not a plan to break down class barriers, but a simple state of affairs being spun as such.
The issue continues in later issues, but I've already written enough for now. I'll continue at a later date.
I respect the editor of the Aviso, Malone University's newspaper. She is a fine woman with a good sense of journalistic integrity. In this year's first issue, she stated her commitment "to cover Malone news accurately, truthfully, and responsibly."
To a degree, she has accomplished this. The Aviso has accurately reported many stories. But there are some points in which they have stopped short. Particularly, when the administrators say something, the Aviso has not, this year, questioned that statement. Before I go on, I in no way insinuate that any deceit is going on in the case of the individual administrator who was quoted by the Aviso, or in the Aviso staff. I only contend that falsehoods were spoken, and make no accusations as to where the falsehoods began and who was under the impression that they were or were not true.
Even in the same first issue in which the Editor dedicated herself to reporting the truth, a story ran about a campus beautification project. Many students were upset that picnic tables were being taken away for the more "aesthetically pleasing" benches, but my concerns were elsewhere: the Aviso reported that "The gazebo," a structure formally located near one of the dorms, "was structurally unsound and was eliminated over the summer." (Emphasis mine). I will tell you, dear readers, this is a lie. First, the gazebo was not structurally unsound. I have spoken with one of the workers responsible for the demolition. Asked about its structural integrity, the anonymous worker said, "It was fine. It just didn't fit in with the current...design. It was torn out for the sake of a proposed road that may be built later." He continued, "In fact, it was quite difficult to take apart." Another reason students believe (but the Aviso did not report) that the gazebo was torn down was that students were fond of using this semi-secluded spot for "make-out sessions." The reason I suspect that the administration claimed the gazebo was unsound is that they could not claim it was unaesthetic, like the picnic tables and could not admit publicly that students used it for romantic rendezvous. Everyone knows it, but no one will own up to the fact. I have heard, though I cannot confirm, that the gazebo had been payed for by a previous graduating class as a class gift. If this is so, it was also necessary to claim the gazebo was unsound for the sake of its demolition because any other reason (like a through-road) to tear down a class's legacy would be met with intense disapproval, to put it lightly.
The problem continued in the third issue of the Aviso, where they reported that class integration of the upperclassmen and freshman dorms was intentional. This is, in fact, what many of the administrators said. It is also a lie. At the end of each school year, returning students may request to keep their room in the freshman dorms. Over the past several years, more and more students have been doing this for the sake of "community" or, in the case of many girls, to avoid being stuck with a room in the dorm furthest from their classes. This increased to the point that the upperclassman residence halls could not be filled with only upperclassmen. Also, Malone continues to admit more students (particularly more men) than they can adequately house. Since Malone has strict rules about who may live off-campus, more upperclassmen were asked to live off campus to make room for all the freshmen now in need of rooms. I was asked to do so the past two years, and flatly declined. Because of upperclassmen refusing to move on from their freshman halls, and Malone's insistence on admitting more students every year, the dorms have become mixed. This was not a plan to break down class barriers, but a simple state of affairs being spun as such.
The issue continues in later issues, but I've already written enough for now. I'll continue at a later date.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Right Message, Wrong Backing
Malone University has mandatory Chapels. That is to say, there are gatherings twice a week in a room that used to be a sanctuary in a building that used to be a church where we go to sing Contemporary Christian Music and/or listen to speakers with varying degrees of spirituality and sports metaphor in their content, and we are expected to go to twenty of these throughout the semester.
Chapel has always requested that we remove our hats, hoods, and other head coverings while in Chapel. I have no issue with this. They also ask that we have our cell phones set to silent. This is no issue, either. Both are signs of respect, and I do my best to give respect where it is due.
Last school year, I noticed that the overhead displays asking us to remove our hats weren't just asking for their removal. They were asking us to remove our hats as Moses removed his shoes before the Lord (a reference to Exodus 3:5). I still removed my hat, but for some time, I would also sarcastically remove my shoes anytime I was in Chapel. I would have kept my hat on to further illustrate this point, but I am personally convicted to have my head uncovered during worship (I'll explain why later). If ever you see my head covered during Chapel, you can tell I feel the message is not only not worshipful, but actually interferes with private worship. I kept up the practice of going barefoot or in stocking feet until I realized that it was even worse for me to do this spitefully than for the school to misuse the verse.
For a time, these messages went away, and Malone went back to just respectfully asking us to remove our hats. However, this semester, it began again... this time with the addendum "but you can keep your shoes on" followed by a smilie face. This flat out disgusted me. I have considered writing to our student newspaper about this, but never have.
Perhaps I should explain myself further for clarification. First of all, the verse in Exodus 3:5 does not say that this is a general practice being established, but a specific case - this was Moses encountering the Burning Bush. Second of all, it was not because of worshipfulness that Moses was told to remove his sandals, but because he was on Holy Ground. Third, if Malone is going to refer to this verse, they ought to have us remove our shoes as well. Fourth, there are verses that speak of the covering or uncovering of one's head in the New Testament, in First Corinthians 11:4-15, especially verses 4-7, 10, and 13. Fifth, if Malone wanted to claim that either of these verses were culturally specific, they should not use them at all, but simply say "as a sign of respect." They could appeal, if they chose, to the practice of removing hats for the Pledge of Allegiance, National Anthem, or Alma Maters - it is respectful in modern American Culture to remove head coverings in cases of particular reverence.
Why does Malone use Exodus and not First Corinthians? My guess is it went something like this:
ADMINISTRATOR 1:
"We need the students to be respectful in Chapel and remove their hats."
ADMINISTRATOR 2:
"Why is that important?"
ADMINISTRATOR 1:
"Paul says in Corinthians that Men need to have their heads uncovered when they pray."
ADMINISTRATOR 3:
"Hm... just the Men? We're all about equality. After all, 'in Christ, we are neither Male nor Female'."
ADMINISTRATOR 1:
"Actually..." [looking it up] "some translations say she would be better to have her head cut off than uncovered."
ADMINISTRATORs 2 and 3:
"WHAT!"
ADMINISTRATOR 1:
"Well, he goes back to Creation and the original order of the Cosmos and explains that just as Christ is the head of the Church, Man is the head of Woman."
ADMINISTRATOR 3:
"That doesn't fit well with our Quaker theology of egalitarianism - it was probably contextual. How else could we motivate the students to take off their hats, and keep a spiritual emphasis?"
ADMINISTRATOR 2:
"Well, Moses took his sandals off at the Burning Bush - shoes are sort of like hats for your feet..."
ADMINISTRATOR 3:
"Perfect! Let's use that!"
I make no judgments about Women who do not cover their heads while praying. It could well have been contextual. The references to the created order clearly require some sort of separation or distinction, though. The options are: in the context in which Paul wrote, the specific sign that was necessary was Women covering their heads and Men having their heads uncovered, but those specifics are no longer necessary, OR Paul was writing for all time and Women ought always have their heads covered, men, uncovered. I personally feel convicted by this passage of scripture, and so I always remove my hat to pray, even if I am only praying for a few seconds.
My response to the claim that we are neither Man nor Woman in Christ is simple: this is true. Neither sex nor gender has any bearing on our salvation. However, it is ignorant to think that this means we are no longer distinct. Just as Christ's sacrifice did not physically remove differentiations between Man and Woman, it has not changed the way in which we relate to the world either. Eve was a helper to Adam. A "helper" is not one who does the same exact thing as the one they help. Neither is the helper a slave or even a servant. A helper fulfills a role separate from but not inferior to the one being helped. And there is nothing to suggest the removal of this distinction, especially in light of the many New Testament references to the differing roles of Men and Women.
Malone is right to tell us to remove our hats (at least, the men). I respect their rules. However, to use the example of Moses and not Paul disrespects the passage in Exodus for using it to support what it was not intended to, the passage in First Corinthians for not using it to support the very thing it was explicitly written about, and us as students for not considering us smart enough to notice or respectful enough to follow the rules for their own sake.
Chapel has always requested that we remove our hats, hoods, and other head coverings while in Chapel. I have no issue with this. They also ask that we have our cell phones set to silent. This is no issue, either. Both are signs of respect, and I do my best to give respect where it is due.
Last school year, I noticed that the overhead displays asking us to remove our hats weren't just asking for their removal. They were asking us to remove our hats as Moses removed his shoes before the Lord (a reference to Exodus 3:5). I still removed my hat, but for some time, I would also sarcastically remove my shoes anytime I was in Chapel. I would have kept my hat on to further illustrate this point, but I am personally convicted to have my head uncovered during worship (I'll explain why later). If ever you see my head covered during Chapel, you can tell I feel the message is not only not worshipful, but actually interferes with private worship. I kept up the practice of going barefoot or in stocking feet until I realized that it was even worse for me to do this spitefully than for the school to misuse the verse.
For a time, these messages went away, and Malone went back to just respectfully asking us to remove our hats. However, this semester, it began again... this time with the addendum "but you can keep your shoes on" followed by a smilie face. This flat out disgusted me. I have considered writing to our student newspaper about this, but never have.
Perhaps I should explain myself further for clarification. First of all, the verse in Exodus 3:5 does not say that this is a general practice being established, but a specific case - this was Moses encountering the Burning Bush. Second of all, it was not because of worshipfulness that Moses was told to remove his sandals, but because he was on Holy Ground. Third, if Malone is going to refer to this verse, they ought to have us remove our shoes as well. Fourth, there are verses that speak of the covering or uncovering of one's head in the New Testament, in First Corinthians 11:4-15, especially verses 4-7, 10, and 13. Fifth, if Malone wanted to claim that either of these verses were culturally specific, they should not use them at all, but simply say "as a sign of respect." They could appeal, if they chose, to the practice of removing hats for the Pledge of Allegiance, National Anthem, or Alma Maters - it is respectful in modern American Culture to remove head coverings in cases of particular reverence.
Why does Malone use Exodus and not First Corinthians? My guess is it went something like this:
ADMINISTRATOR 1:
"We need the students to be respectful in Chapel and remove their hats."
ADMINISTRATOR 2:
"Why is that important?"
ADMINISTRATOR 1:
"Paul says in Corinthians that Men need to have their heads uncovered when they pray."
ADMINISTRATOR 3:
"Hm... just the Men? We're all about equality. After all, 'in Christ, we are neither Male nor Female'."
ADMINISTRATOR 1:
"Actually..." [looking it up] "some translations say she would be better to have her head cut off than uncovered."
ADMINISTRATORs 2 and 3:
"WHAT!"
ADMINISTRATOR 1:
"Well, he goes back to Creation and the original order of the Cosmos and explains that just as Christ is the head of the Church, Man is the head of Woman."
ADMINISTRATOR 3:
"That doesn't fit well with our Quaker theology of egalitarianism - it was probably contextual. How else could we motivate the students to take off their hats, and keep a spiritual emphasis?"
ADMINISTRATOR 2:
"Well, Moses took his sandals off at the Burning Bush - shoes are sort of like hats for your feet..."
ADMINISTRATOR 3:
"Perfect! Let's use that!"
I make no judgments about Women who do not cover their heads while praying. It could well have been contextual. The references to the created order clearly require some sort of separation or distinction, though. The options are: in the context in which Paul wrote, the specific sign that was necessary was Women covering their heads and Men having their heads uncovered, but those specifics are no longer necessary, OR Paul was writing for all time and Women ought always have their heads covered, men, uncovered. I personally feel convicted by this passage of scripture, and so I always remove my hat to pray, even if I am only praying for a few seconds.
My response to the claim that we are neither Man nor Woman in Christ is simple: this is true. Neither sex nor gender has any bearing on our salvation. However, it is ignorant to think that this means we are no longer distinct. Just as Christ's sacrifice did not physically remove differentiations between Man and Woman, it has not changed the way in which we relate to the world either. Eve was a helper to Adam. A "helper" is not one who does the same exact thing as the one they help. Neither is the helper a slave or even a servant. A helper fulfills a role separate from but not inferior to the one being helped. And there is nothing to suggest the removal of this distinction, especially in light of the many New Testament references to the differing roles of Men and Women.
Malone is right to tell us to remove our hats (at least, the men). I respect their rules. However, to use the example of Moses and not Paul disrespects the passage in Exodus for using it to support what it was not intended to, the passage in First Corinthians for not using it to support the very thing it was explicitly written about, and us as students for not considering us smart enough to notice or respectful enough to follow the rules for their own sake.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Goodbye, California
Malone College never screwed me over. I have many friends who hated how the school dealt with them, but I never experienced this firsthand--the closest it came was when I had to miss out on taking Playwriting because of a scheduling conflict. I was content with Malone College, and would always recommend it to people.
Malone University has screwed me over. Despite the fact that it had been used as a Cross-Cultural credit before, despite the fact that every administrator and professor claimed to support me in going, despite the fact that classes with no actual Cross-Cultural interaction are on the official Gen Ed menu, the Gen Ed committee refused my petition to count LA toward my Cross-Cultural Gen Ed. I will not graduate late. I now have lost. I will finish out my Senior year at Malone University. I wish I could blame someone, but I can't--it's just the way things have gone.
I love all of my Malone friends--the one benefit of all of this is that I won't have to leave them. The Lord is faithful, and all will be well. I am only saddened that things have not gone as I hoped they would. Prayer for my peace of mind with this turn of events would be appreciated.
Malone University has screwed me over. Despite the fact that it had been used as a Cross-Cultural credit before, despite the fact that every administrator and professor claimed to support me in going, despite the fact that classes with no actual Cross-Cultural interaction are on the official Gen Ed menu, the Gen Ed committee refused my petition to count LA toward my Cross-Cultural Gen Ed. I will not graduate late. I now have lost. I will finish out my Senior year at Malone University. I wish I could blame someone, but I can't--it's just the way things have gone.
I love all of my Malone friends--the one benefit of all of this is that I won't have to leave them. The Lord is faithful, and all will be well. I am only saddened that things have not gone as I hoped they would. Prayer for my peace of mind with this turn of events would be appreciated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)