Battles Royal
Paula Thigpen

I am in the midst of teaching Shakespeare and I thought of all the witches, sorcerers, soothsayers, bloodshed, rapes, cannibalism, naked ambition and so forth and so forth that is replete in the Bard’s work. Yet caught up in this frenzy is an abundance of scriptural allusions and moral questions in which Sir William often pits evil against good and then leads us through the moral minefield or, some might quip, quagmire – not much different from our infamous slough of dispond. Do I forego the lofty heights of Shakespeare if a student objects?

I agree with Professor Innes that the student’s questions are valid ones and I dare say none of us would ever shut a student down from asking them, as they spring from a battle of conscience. Somehow, I am reminded of good King Harry and Sir Thomas and the latter’s silence that was heard from every nook and cranny of England. Silence is not the answer. Perhaps, as Professor Tokarev states, a good offense starts with a good defense. We are charged by God to be equipped for battle and we would be ill equipped indeed if we do not study the enemy’s strategy – if we do not study the game films. I asked Provost Wood how on earth he knows so much about so many subjects as is evident in his new book – how is he so well steeped in the culture of our day – “research”, he said. So, doesn’t the same apply here? How can our students be shaped into great thinkers if they have not explored the great minds of civilization? Is not this research? We are very much well aware that many of these minds are pagan. Do we simply ignore them? Paul certainly didn’t. Jesus certainly didn’t. C.S. Lewis didn’t. They lived neck deep in the world and, I would venture to say, courted the world and at the same time held the scripture and their cherished principles up as swords against the world’s darkness and lies. I don’t think we can be great theologians and do apologetics without a deep understanding of the arguments and thinking of those with which we vehemently disagree. I would challenge this student to read the material and bring to the table his opposition which is then fodder for a very enlightening discussion. It is often in these discussions of principal that a greater understanding of who God is can be uncovered. I found even in a conservative seminary that my professors chose texts (Clark Pinnock, Sanders etc.) that raised quite a few eyebrows and ruffled a few feathers, but they did not remove the books or allow the student to choose another text. We vigorously pursued the truth in class and there were some battle royals. I understand the foundation of truth because I had to defend it against the most allusive and subtle of arguments. Do we not want this for our own students? I listened last Tuesday to many of you express the need to teach our students in ways that develop the mind, heart and spirit – is this such a way?

Choosing the right kind of controversial material is very important. When I introduce a work, I ask my students if there is any objection. If there is, and the objection is cogent, I sometimes choose an alternative work. I do the same with any film clips I show in class.

The student might think he is in good company since the Council of Geneva ordered all copies of Candide burned. But what was the Council of Geneva trying to hide? What did it not want the Citizens of Geneva to know? I would think Candide would produce a profitable discussion on God’s inherent goodness and love in the midst of a world gone bad or mad. Isn’t there room for a biblical worldview in discussing Candide?