« U.S. Special Forces Kill No. 2 Terrorist in Iraq | Home | Times: Societies worse off with God on their side »

Tuesday, September 27, 2005

Character at Convocation

My friend Tory Fodder, who graduated Dartmouth last year, has picked up on the Noah Riner story and is firmly, and eloquently, behind the speech:

Dartmouth is many things. It is the majesty of a brilliant fall morning and a hot cup of coffee. And it can be the cold depression of a dark winter’s day. But chief among these things ought to be the question of character—Riner said it best, “Who are you? And how will you become what you need to be?” This most certainly will be the task of these students even as it was a task I encountered myself. In my own journey, I did not meet my expectations in the realm of character. But in the Lord, we find the solution to the problem. Forgiveness and grace made possible by the man on the cross for us. And so it too will be for them, should students and individuals anywhere choose to accept it.

Andrew Seal, meanwhile, calls Riner “our very own cowboy president” as he inveighs against religious rhetoric at Convocation. Andrew argues rather strongly that Riner’s speech was proselytizing because he used the pronoun ‘us’ rather than ‘me’.

This is not a case of a personal profession of faith. Riner makes no distinction between himself and the rest of us, between what he believes is the route to his salvation and the path for everyone else to follow.

One thing that is even more disturbing: Riner does not stop at saying something equivalent to ‘Surrendering to God’s love is the optimal or best way to obtain character.’ By providing no further examples of character and by using the exclusive article ‘the’ without any attempt at moderation, Riner makes it explicit that Christ is, according to him, the only Way, Truth, and Life.

A faculty member sent in a similar comment to Dartblog several days ago. The relevant passage from the speech:

“Jesus’ message of redemption is simple. People are imperfect, and there are consequences for our actions. He gave His life for our sin so that we wouldn’t have to bear the penalty of the law; so we could see love. The problem is me; the solution is God’s love: Jesus on the cross, for us.”

That was a faux pas. Though, if I put on my speech analyst hat, I’d say that Riner wasn’t informing his audience that Jesus was on the cross for them, but instead referencing a basic tenet of christianity, which is that Jesus was “on the cross for us.” Where “us” is the general prescription for mankind used by the church.

Andrew’s more salient point is that Riner cannot presume to represent the Dartmouth study body, and ergo his speech was discriminatory.

There are certain theories of state executives’ duty. Some say that the elected executive ought to be a representative. Some say that the elected executive has a mandate to act as an elite. Regardless of which view moves us toward the more perfect nation, it is clear that no American president, at least, has ever entirely adopted one view over another. Every president has invoked God and godliness in speech, often to great and momentous effect. George Bush’s oratory, in fact, is rather low on the piety score when compared to his predecessors.

That, despite the fact that America has never been a unireligious nation. Reasonable people take no qualms with a foreign religion being invoked as long as the intent is noble. Noah Riner invoked Jesus multiple times, including events that only certain religions believe. But his speech made it very clear that his message wasn’t Be Christian, but Have Character. He cites Jesus as a personal exemplar, and that’s that.

Posted on September 27, 2005 07:52 AM. Permalink