Author: Croy Brautigam

Categories
Opinions

The Hunger for Violence

Over Thanksgiving break I went to see the third movie of The Hunger Games series, of which I have read all three books. Since then, multiple people have asked me if I liked it, and each time I have had trouble answering. Did I like it? I don’t think so; but I don’t think this series was meant to be enjoyed.

CoryBrautigamIt’s not that the cinematography was bad or the acting was poor, but it’s disturbing to see the parallels between the dystopian society imagined by the author of The Hunger Games, Suzanne Collins, and the world we live in. And surely this is, at least in part, the point of the series. However, what’s more disturbing is the number of people I hear talking about how much they like the series. I’m not saying that it’s necessarily wrong for someone to like it, but we need to at least understand that it is more than entertainment. It is revelatory.

If you’re not convinced this is true, look to Thailand. Following the military coup in May, people began to use the three-fingered salute from The Hunger Games as an act of resistance to the new military-run government. This led to multiple arrests. People living in the systems of our world can relate to this story of a totalitarian empire that sends children into the “Hunger Games” where only one can come out victorious, only one survives — these games held to display government power. This is scary.

There are many disheartening parallels to be found between the nation of Panem in The Hunger Games, the nation we live in, and all the powers and principalities of this world. But this is not the only evil exposed by this series. Though, it is the easiest to see. In fact, the larger wrongdoing revealed, the one I think we would do good to uncover, may be the very reason that it is easiest to see the evil of the government.

So what is this subtle evil? Violence. The will of the crowd. The most disturbing part of reading this series was witnessing my own passion to bring about justice by the way of violence catch fire, so to speak.

13150546874_b3f7296522_bLet me say that I am thankful to be an American. However, I was ready to throw the first stone at my nation upon reading these books, but I am now realizing that, sadly, I have both benefited from the brokenness of the system and contributed to it. I certainly have no right to violence; and as Brian Zhand points out in his book A Farewell to Mars, we often think this is what freedom is: a right to violence. He goes on in this book to say that “violence cannot tolerate the presence of one who owes it nothing.” This is a hard truth. We either put ourselves at risk of being stoned or we join in the stoning. No other options exist.

In The Hunger Games, the resistance to the government is formed behind the image of a warrior, a victor, a “courageous” killer, Katniss Everdeen and her three-finger salute. This symbol brings the people of Panem together against the Capitol. The Jews would have much preferred Katniss Everdeen riding in her flaming chariot to Jesus riding on a donkey. Surely, they would not have killed her.

In the series, you see Katniss struggling with the symbol she has become. She is unsure of whether she should continue in her role as the incarnate representation of this resistance movement. In some ways she wants to be more like Jesus and his way of peace. Yet, she cannot overcome the need the mass has for her as a symbol of retaliation, and the systemic “necessitation” of violence.

As Christians we have a different symbol to unite behind, the only symbol that can unite people in peace. That is Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace. Through his death on the cross he has exposed the inherent evil of the violent systems of the world, the systems that put him on the cross. I think, if we are attentive to the revelatory nature of The Hunger Games series, we might be able to see how they also shine light on these evils. May we not worry about whether the odds are ever in our favor, but instead always choose to follow Christ down the path of peace and peacemaking.

Categories
News

National // Death With Dignity Advocate Dies

This past Saturday, November 1, Brittany Maynard ended her own life with lethal medications prescribed to her for this purpose. The 29-year-old California resident was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer earlier this year, and soon after left California. She moved to Oregon to be covered under the Oregon Death With Dignity Act.

From the time of diagnosis until her death, Maynard was an active advocate of Death With Dignity. According to CNN, this movement “advocates that terminally ill patients be allowed to receive cover-768medication that will let them die on their own terms.”  In order to be eligible to receive prescriptions for fatal medications like the one Maynard used to end her life, one must be diagnosed with a terminal illness and have a life-expectancy of less than 6 months. Maynard chose to end her life with a mixture of water, sedatives, and respiratory-system depressants.

Before her death, Maynard used multiple social media platforms to argued in favor of terminally ill people and their right to make informed choices on how they choose to die. One video she posted on YouTube explaining her decision received over eleven million views. Maynard also partnered with Compassion & Choices, a non-profit organization devoted to educating, advocating, and working “to protect and expand options at the end of life,” to develop thebrittanyfund.org, a website about her own journey and a platform to advocate for end-of-life options. In Maynard’s obituary, posted to her website, it stated “she wished that her home State of California had also been able to provide terminally ill patients with the same choice.”

Statements such as these have sparked nationwide conversation about whether Death With Dignity is a right that should be affordable to all. Voices from both sides of the argument have been heard about aid-in-dying practices. Responses have ranged from calling Maynard’s decision “unethical” to calling it “brave.” According to NBC News, lawmakers from New Jersey and Connecticut have spoken out in support of Death With Dignity bills.

There are currently five states that have laws providing aid-in-dying practices. Oregon acted as the trendsetter, initiating its law in 1997. According to the Death With Dignity National Center, Oregon has provided “years of data show[ing] the law is safe and utilized the way it’s intended with no evidence of a slippery slope for vulnerable Oregonians.” This has led to the legislation of Death With Dignity laws in Washington (2008), Montana (2009), Vermont (2013), and New Mexico (2014). Maynard’s death has sparked new life in those fighting for the right to Die With Dignity.

Categories
Opinions

Discriminating and Dignifying: Faith-based Clubs Derecognized

This fall, California State University derecognized InterVarsity Christian Fellowship’s status as an official club on all 23 of their campuses. On what basis? On the basis that this Christian club was discriminating by requiring its leaders to commit to core beliefs. This was done by Cal State out of their commitment to diversity. In order for a club to be recognized on their campuses – entailing funding and access to spaces for gathering – the club must have an “all comers” policy for leadership roles.

Cory quoteThis seems absurd. The State University of New York at Buffalo (UB) had also derecognized this club in April 2012, but later acknowledged the absurdity of this action in a statement made upon the re-recognition of the club. They stated that “it is common sense, not discrimination, for a religious group to want its leaders to agree with its core beliefs.” I agree that it seems like common sense, but I would also say that it is justified discrimination. We must be allowed to, and even encouraged to, allow certain differences to act as qualifications in the right context.

The idea that discrimination is wrong, as I understand it, is primarily rooted in the protection of human rights – and human rights should be protected! However, I think the affirmation of difference and recognition of uniqueness in the other can be humanizing. The act of distinguishing people can be done in such a way as to dignify. We often think of tolerance as being the alternative to discrimination, but if we understand discrimination as seeing difference, we would do better to discriminate and value a person’s differences than to tolerate them.

Cal State’s decision to derecognize InterVarsity Christian Fellowship was actually an act of discrimination, and surely Cal State does need to discriminate against clubs in which human dignity is being wounded and diversity is being compromised. But we must decide when discrimination should be discriminated against. I would argue that the discrimination by InterVarsity should not have been discriminated against.

Some have argued that this move by Cal State and other universities who have done the same does not change anything in practice. The clubs just have to sign “all comers” policies for leadership roles; but because of the democratic system in which the members of the club elect their officers, along with the selection bias of those who choose to join the club, it is argued that the officers will almost definitely be people who are committed to the core beliefs of the club anyway. This would most definitely be the case. So what’s the big deal?

Firstly, clubs should not be forced to sign absurd policies which they do not really believe in order to maintain their status as a recognized club. Secondly, the university is acting in contradiction to itself. As a Bloomberg editorial says, “It’s a way for the university to pledge allegiance to diversity without embracing pluralism.” Finally, we must consider the potential future implications that could come out of such a ruling.

If funding and recognition are withdrawn from on-campus clubs because they have qualifications for leadership that are explicitly tied to the mission of the club, where else might funding and recognition be withdrawn? Might other institutions that require leaders to be committed to some core set of beliefs be derecognized? While the particulars of the current circumstance may seem relatively insignificant, one can imagine what future implications this could have. That is why we must engage with this issue now. We must learn when to discriminate, and how to do so in a way that dignifies. Tolerance is rarely the answer, we must do more than tolerate. We must learn to better relate on a human level so that when we discriminate, when we see the differences, we can affirm them, and our relationships can flourish. If we can learn this, maybe institutions can too.

Categories
News

Ebola Persists, The U.S. Fights Back

During his visit to the headquarters of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta on Tuesday, President Obama announced a new course of action the U.S. will take in the fight against the Ebola outbreak in West Africa. This plan comes after complaints from those on the frontlines in the fight against the virus that there has been an inadequate response by the U.S. and other able nations. The World Health Organization (WHO), local governments, and aid groups all in agreeance the epidemic is currently out of hand. In his speech on Tuesday, Obama described it as “spiraling out of control.”

CoryBrautigamThe new plan will be an estimated $763 million expansion of the current aid from the U.S., according to USA Today. A training program will be set up in order to train 500 health care workers a week. Medecins Sans Frontieres  (French for “Doctors Without Borders”) called medical staff the greatest need by far at present. Along with the training program, the U.S. will also be building 17 new Ebola treatment centers, as all Ebola treatment centers are currently full. As soon as new treatment centers open they are immediately filled, according to the WHO.

Obama has committed 3,000 additional military personnel to be sent to Liberia to carry out the aid efforts. According to CNN, the Liberian leadership requested the help of the U.S. military with civilian efforts in Liberia. Major General Darryl Williams, the commander of the U.S. Army Africa, will be leading the effort from Monrovia, the Liberian capital. Operation United Assistance, the name assigned to this effort, will also involve what Obama is calling an “air bridge”, making medical supplies and health care workers more accessible to the region.

Officials say this is not a U.S. takeover of the aid effort, but instead it is an example other countries should follow. According to The Wall Street Journal, the U.S. are to host an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council this upcoming week to seek commitments from other nations and generate an effective plan for moving forward in the fight against Ebola.

On Tuesday, Obama addressed the fact that the response from the international community needs to be prompt, saying, “We can save lives. But we have to act fast.” U.S. officials have acknowledged Obama’s announcement on Tuesday is a reflection of the fact that there is currently not enough being done in the effort against the virus. The hope is that this surge of aid from the U.S. will be a turning point in the Ebola epidemic. During Obama’s announcement, he stated how we fight the disease is “not a mystery,” and called for a global response to follow the lead of the U.S. The WHO estimates it will take $1 billion to get ahead of the virus and control it.

Laurie Garrett, a global health and infectious disease expert at the Council on Foreign Relations said, “To get ahead of the virus, we need to have a massive presence on the ground yesterday.” Whether or not this is too little too late is still up in the air. Experts say if nothing more is done, we could be looking at hundreds of thousands infected. BBC News says some disease experts are questioning the focus of the U.S. effort on Liberia, believing it to be too narrow as the disease has spread beyond Liberia and continues to spread. While there is still skepticism about the sufficiency of this effort by the U.S., most non-government organizations are optimistic after Obama’s announcement Tuesday.

Obama’s announcement is, in part, a response to concerned Americans who are worried about the virus spreading into the U.S. The White House said, “The Ebola epidemic in West Africa and the humanitarian crisis there is a top national security priority for the United States.” The U.S. continues to talk about this epidemic as a global security issue as opposed to a health crisis.

Categories
Opinions

On Interruption

Don’t waste your life never being interrupted. I continually find it true that it is better to be a person who is easily interrupted than a person who never allows interruptions to affect them. Maybe I’m just putting in a good word for spontaneity, but I think there is something more to being a person who is attentive to interruption than just being spontaneous.

Interruption is the breaking of continuity. Whether it is the continuity of a conversation, the continuity of a walk in the park, or the continuity of life, interruptions interfere. They come in all shapes and sizes. When you’re walking down to the townhouses and the siren goes off: interruption. When you’re trying to finish a paper and your roommate strikes up a conversation: interruption.

We generally consider interruptions bad. The reason for this, I believe, is two-fold. First, interruptions get in the way of what we expect to happen or what we are planning. In moments of interruption, we are rendered somewhat helpless. We like to be in control. We like to have a plan. We feel a sense of entitlement — this is our time, and we can do with it what we want. Interruption takes this from us. Second, we are more attuned to the negative interruptions. As we notice the baby crying while trying to talk on the phone, we miss the flute-like call of the Oriole as we run through the park. “Please do not interrupt” has been overdone. Surely there is a time (in fact, many a time) not to interrupt, but because we are always being told that we should not interrupt we learn to react as if we have been wronged when we are interrupted.

Cory BrautigamMy brother once found a fly cooked into his french toast at a diner, this was an unwelcome interruption to his mealtime. Bad interruptions do exist, and they take away from whatever it is that they are disrupting. Negative interruptions are quite common in this age, the age of technology and consumerism. Facebook and advertisements interrupt us daily, but these “fly in the french toast” moments are not the only kind of interruptions. There are times when the welcoming of an disturbance will allow us to better enjoy the very continuity being interrupted.

I would argue that the greatest interruption of all time was the incarnation of Jesus Christ, who is the very foundation of the Christian faith. If you confess faith in this person, you are called to be attentive to interruptions, even to build your life on the interruptions of Christ.

The usefulness of interruption is evident in various ways. It can humble us. It can remind us that we are not the only person with an agenda, and that other people and their cares are worth our attention. It can teach us about the world around us, about things that we are not even aware are there for us to be taught about. It can guide us into new places, places we would not have imagined we would be. It is in being aware of the interruptions in our life that we grow. Of course there are still interruptions that we should disregard, but if we pay attention we might be surprised at what goodness we find interrupting our lives.

Categories
Opinions Two Views

Two Views: Convictions and Compromise

Can a Christian hold convictions strongly, yet at the same time be willing to compromise?

Browsing over the lunches of my second grade classmates, I searched for food items that I thought my taste buds would find more satisfying than the bag of pretzels in front of me. Hmm … we had a small pack of Skittles (an option), a bag of baby carrots (too healthy), some Goldfish (those looked good, but their owner was a girl and girls still had cooties), and an array of other snacks, none of which measured up to my pretzels. So, I decided to eat my pretzels. Into my body they went, part of my body they became. Such is the way with convictions.

coryYour convictions define you. They are a part of you. This is always the case. But there is a hierarchy of convictions. What is it that differentiates the Christian from the non-Christian? It is her fundamental convictions, held by grace. The Christian could not and should not compromise or barter on issues challenging fundamental convictions. However, there is a time to compromise and barter on certain issues; history reminds us of the dangers of thinking otherwise.

The word conviction is derived from the Latin noun convictio, or verb convincere, which translates to “with conquer,” implying that holding convictions involves both a conqueror and a conquered. Holding convictions can do violence. But be not fooled: there is also danger for the disciple of Christ who is unwilling to hold convictions uncompromisingly.

In Romans 8:38-39, Paul says that he is convinced that nothing can separate “us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” He is convinced of this, he holds onto it with certainty. The Christian must have distinguishing fundamental convictions, rooted in the certainty of the love of Jesus, on which she is not willing to compromise or barter. There are also issues that the Christian should be willing to compromise and barter on in order that she does not compromise on a more fundamental conviction within the hierarchy.

Economic theory tells us that a free market economy with pure competition maintains allocative efficiency; that is, goods and services go where they are most desirable. In the same way, if we compromise and barter on all issues, we will end up holding whatever convictions we find most advantageous to us. The Christian should be uncomfortable with bartering on issues that conflict with fundamental convictions. To barter on these issues makes one’s convictions meaningless and turns one into a disciple of self. Instead, Jesus calls us to follow him and be his disciples. If we have no discipline in holding fundamental convictions uncompromisingly, then how are we to be disciples of Christ?

Look at the conquest and evangelization of the Americas that marginalized native peoples. Many people would see this as Christians who were unwilling to compromise and barter on issues with the native people. While I think this is true, I would argue that, at the heart of the matter, it was Christians who were willing to compromise on the fundamental convictions in order to use “evangelization” as a means to power and domination. Because it was advantageous, fundamental convictions were abused. This is the danger of a “free market economy of ideology.”

Because convictions make us who we are, we must never compromise on the fundamental convictions that are inseparable from our Christian identity. We have a table at which we are formed. No, it is not the second grade lunch table. At the Eucharist table we partake of the embodiment of our fundamental convictions. May we always hold to these uncompromisingly.

 

Categories
Opinions

I Dare You

Truth or dare? Truth. That was always my answer. I was afraid of the dare. Who knew what one of my friends’ little 14-year-old-minds could come up with? I knew what I could come up with and that scared me enough to keep me from ever answering with “dare.” The unknown is wild and exciting, but more than that it is quite frightening. Whenever one of my friends was feeling more courageous and answered “dare,” there followed a collective and sustained “OOHHH!” We all became excited, and even nervous, for this heroic, young risk-taker.

notFast-forward a few years and here we are today, still playing that game, still answering that question. And often we still answer with the all-too-safe “truth.” The irony is that we are, whether we know it or not, whether we like it or not, people of the dare. To live is to accept one dare or another. Existence requires it. But ever since we were young we were made to think there was a safe way out. I’m here to say: there’s not.

A dare is a call to a particular action. It is obvious (and also obviously suppressed) that our lives are made up of a collection of particular actions over a period of time; and that these actions form us. Our very beings are formed by the dares we take on. It is not my hope that this will make you think about taking on a dare sometime, in fact this wouldn’t even make sense for me to hope for. No, my hope is that you realize that you have no choice but to take on dares. So, affirm the dare. Be daring.

Now let us humbly converse with the other option: truth. In all my affirmation of the dare I do not intend to, in any way, eclipse or trivialize truth. I only mean to point out the misunderstanding of truth, this all-too-safe “truth”. In Twilight of the Idols Nietzsche reminds us that “only thoughts reached by walking have value.” He did not mean that we must literally be walking around to have valuable thoughts (though I do not think this is a bad practice … maybe classes should have walking routes as opposed to classrooms). I think he was trying to suggest that as existing individuals the truth and the dare are very much related.

What is this relationship? I’m not going to pretend to know the complexities of it, but I will humbly speculate this: the truth about who you are is not the truth about who you are unless it motivates the dares that you choose to take on; and the dares you choose to take on will form the truth about who you are. You may be thinking, “Hey, that’s super circular though.” Well, you’re right! That is why there is a need for the gift of Grace in order for existence to take place.

This gift of Grace also happens to be the ultimate example of this relationship between the truth and the dare: that The Truth took on the greatest dare of all; that is, The Truth became a person of the dare. All this time we’ve been thinking that answering “truth” was the safe option, but that is only because we have dressed truth up in many costumes and suffocated her, so she is neither recognizable, nor mobile, nor alive. Sounds strangely familiar? Do you recall the historical account of The Truth? The point is this: truth is dangerous!

In the same way that a financial manager acknowledges that there is a certain amount of systematic, non-diversifiable risk involved in any investment, we must acknowledge that there is unavoidable risk that comes along with existence. One basic risk in the relationship of truth and dare is the risk of hypocrisy. Often times I find myself afraid to act because I know I can’t live by the all-too-safe truths I hold. But this is hypocritical in the most fundamental sense. It is a way of living and acting (or not acting) that implies “I don’t exist,” when the truth is, I do.

We must not be afraid of these risks. We must acknowledge the uncertainty of life. By affirming this, we enable ourselves to live more truthfully, to make better decisions about the dares that we take on. So, truth or dare? Dare, you say? I dare you to become a person of the dare. I dare you to exist.