Category: Opinions

Categories
Opinions

Homosexuality and the Church | Part 2

In my last article, “Homosexuality and the Chruch | Part 1,” I addressed the issue of how the church should respond and treat the LGBTQ community. Changing behavior is not a particularly simple or easy task, especially when that attitude or behavior is rooted in centuries of dogma and tradition. In fact, church doctrine typically serves as the basis for action. This typically comes out in positive ways when the church takes it upon itself to care for the poor, feed the hungry, etc. However, when our doctrine says something intrinsically negative, our actions seem to follow suit.

HollyThe church has problems dealing with its congregations full of sinners. Grace and forgiveness are exceedingly hard to extend, and judgment is often cast instead. If Paul condemns the adulterer, so does the church. If Jesus condemns the Pharisee, the church condemns their modern day equivalent. Sin is a recurring problem, and yet it is an issue that we perhaps don’t fully understand. The common picture of sin that the church gives is characterized by specific actions: adultery, lying, murder, etc. However, reducing sin to mere actions misses the point of what sin is. It has to be more than breaking the rules. A more accurate understanding is that of sin as separation from God. With this definition of sin in mind, it gives us cause to reevaluate what is actually sin and what is not.  Homosexuality, I will argue, is not the sin the church has believed it to be. Thus in adjusting her theology, the church will be able to change her behavior toward the LGBTQ community in significant and lasting ways.

Catholic priest and theologian James Alison, a gay man himself, calls himself an “educated amateur” when it comes to the topic of homosexuality. In his article The Fulcrum of Discovery or: How the ‘Gay Thing’ is Good News for the Catholic Church, Alison lays out his basic premise which is two-fold: first, “what we call ‘straight’ or ‘heterosexual’ is not the normative human condition,” humanity is not “intrinsically heterosexual,” and second, homosexuality is “not a vice or a sickness. It is simply a regularly occurring minority variant in the human species.”

Alison rejects homosexuality as being any sort of psychological or physiological pathology, and instead argues that it is a minority variant that regularly occurs, “independent of culture, habitat, religion, education, or customs.” The reality of “being gay” is lived in “an entirely culture-laden way” just like any other human reality, which is why, Alison argues, it has been often misinterpreted as being merely “a function of culture, psychology, religion or morality.” This is why the church has gotten historically “worked up” over the issue; if she simply saw it as something that is just there, not something wrong or something to fix, “being gay” would be a non-issue. Alison finds support for this claim and argues that there is no longer scientific evidence to reinforce the idea that homosexuality is inherently odd or wrong. It is merely an objectively true fact of being human that some individuals (between three and four percent across all cultures according to Alison) are attracted to members of their own sex.

Chaisson_HollySurprise, humanity is more complex than we (the church included) had originally thought. Historically the church has taken stances on social issues (racism, women’s rights) that she later must amend; homosexuality is simply the next item on this list. The church has new information at her disposal and it is her responsibility to make amends and reform not just her attitude and behavior, but her doctrine as well.

Honestly, when the idea of “being gay” is given any amount of thought, it is hard to say why (aside from culturally dependent and misunderstood Biblical passages) it would be a sin. Why is being attracted to a member of your own sex such a bad thing? Shouldn’t what matters the most be love? Why should we care the context in which that happens if it is a healthy and safe one? The homosexuality that Paul talks about is not this; it concerned abusive relationships between older men and younger boys. This I can see being a sin. Two men or two women simply falling in love does not compute as sin for me, I agree wholeheartedly with Alison. If our image of God is so small that only heterosexuality is acceptable in his design of humanity, we have bigger worries than marriage equality.

Categories
Opinions

Don’t Plan Parenthood

Motherhood: A time many women anticipate in life. It’s symbolic of turning a new page in the book of life, the start of the long road of adulthood. However, Facebook and Apple are now asking women to put all that on hold. For what you may ask? To further their careers and advance in possible business opportunities. That’s great, right? They’re so invested in the ‘future careers and opportunities for women’ that they’re now offering to cover $20,000 worth of medical costs for their female employees to freeze their eggs.

A little background on egg freezing: it’s relatively new technology, only deemed non-experimental in 2012. It was never intended to be used as it is currently, for postponing pregnancy to further careers. Instead it was recommended as an alternative for critically ill patients undergoing treatments that could potentially sterilize them. $20,000. A lot of money, am I right? Not when it comes to freezing your eggs. If you’re considering freezing your eggs to expand the length of your career you should consider this: it cost $10,000 per egg retrieval, $3,000 for hormone injections, $1,500 for anesthesia, and $500 per year of egg storage. So basically Facebook and Apple will pay for you to get two eggs removed, the rest is up to you since it’s rare to find an insurance company that will cover the cost.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m thrilled corporations are taking women into consideration and attempting to provide solutions so they can continue in the labor force. However, both Facebook and Apple are not taking into consideration the weight of the decision and the potential detriments that come with the choice to freeze one’s eggs. There are many health risks to consider when making the choice, including blood clots, organ failure, and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome.

Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome occurs due to the hormone injections one needs to undergo the egg freezing process. The hormones enlarge the ovaries, putting them at risk of rupturing, in turn potentially ruining a woman’s chance for natural pregnancy. What’s the best part of all this? Egg freezing only has about a 40-50% chance of success for women under 35. But it’s great, right? Facebook and Apple are sincerely and wholeheartedly interested in the future of women in the workforce. So much so that they’re asking them to choose between a career with their corporation and potential fatalities for a possible chance at motherhood. Maybe they’ll get to have children, and just maybe they’ll get to keep their job if they do.

Could you decide between a long career with the possibility of not having children or lack of career with the probable guarantee of parenthood? Whether you want to admit it or not, it’s an emotionally devastating decision to make, especially when you’re supposed to be in the prime of your life. How will you know if you even want children? What if this job isn’t for you? Women shouldn’t be put in a position where they have to make this choice, it’s not fair to them to have to choose. Corporations should let women decide their future in their own time, not force them to make a decision because they feel like it will better their company in the long-run.

Instead of forcing women to make such a crucial decision that could significantly impact the outcome of their future, why not just offer a longer maternity leave? Or maybe use the money that they’re willing to spend on freezing eggs and instead pay women to go on maternity leave? Believe it or not, women are great multitaskers. While it may be harder for some companies, at Facebook and Apple it would be relatively easy for women to work from home while on maternity leave benefiting both the company and the new mother.

Why not pay women to work while on maternity leave at least until the point of birth, giving them something to do and allowing them to be of aid to the company at the same time? Countries like the UK offer 52 weeks of maternity leave and pay 90% of wages, so why can’t companies in the U.S. pay for a few months with the possibility of a woman working from home?

And if women are offered the chance to freeze eggs, why aren’t the corporations paying to freeze sperm? Some may argue ‘that’s completely different, men can’t get pregnant!’ This isn’t about getting pregnant though, women can still work and function normally in a job setting during the duration of the pregnancy. If a man wanted a family would he be asked to reconsider because it may affect his potential career and future with a company? It may come from stereotypes that women have a larger role in raising a child than men do, but in today’s society that couldn’t be further from the truth.

Men are just as actively involved in raising children as women are. In some cases men are more involved than women. My father, a divorcee and father to 7, raised, supported, and housed 3 of us without a single cent or ounce of support from our mother. Would he have been asked to put his parental duties on hold to further his career? Probably not, because stereotypes have told us that he has little to none.

In conclusion, businesses shouldn’t ask women to plan their reproductive futures around their company’s projected success and they shouldn’t assume men have no reproductive plans. Societal expectations and stereotypes have made us unsympathetic and greedy, always looking for something that will benefit us in a situation, which is exactly what Facebook and Apple are doing right now. Life is unexpected, can change in the blink of an eye, and should be lived that way. Not planned.

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
Opinions

Homosexuality and the Church | Part 1

On October 19th, a proposed draft document concerning ministering failed to pass approval on sections regarding the church’s position on ministering to the gay community. There were roughly 200 bishops in attendance during a two-week conference on this document, which passed through several drafts before reaching a final, which was ultimately voted down because it did not receive the necessary two-thirds majority vote needed to pass.

The original draft of the paragraphs concerning the gay community used encouraging and progressive new language. According to BBC, the language spoke of not only “accepting and valuing a person’s sexual orientation,” but also offering gays a “welcoming home” in the church. The earlier version went even further, declaring that homosexuals had “gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community.” The fact that this was the original language approved by Pope Francis speaks volumes. Unsurprisingly, gay rights activists and progressive church groups were in full support, rallying around this veritable new horizon. Sadly, in subsequent versions, this breakthrough and promising language was slowly whittled down to a draft that BBC again quotes as stressing a “welcoming” tone and timidly advocating the avoidance of discrimination. Disappointed by the decision of the synod, Pope Francis insisted upon full transparency of all document drafts and voting tally. In the same BBC press statement, Francis is quoted as cautioning against “hostile inflexibility, that is, wanting to close oneself within the written word, and not allowing oneself to be surprised by God.”

As a community, the church has much to learn from this event. First and foremost, churches across the board, Orthodox, Protestant, and Evangelical alike, need to turn the same critical and introspective eye that Francis did to their own treatment of not just the gay community, but also the LGBTQ community as a whole. It is no longer acceptable for the church to merely “put up” with this community, rather it should take its cue from the original, progressive language and actively welcome and encourage the LGBTQ community to participate in congregations fully. Taking the attitude of “hate the sin, love the sinner”

toward the LGBTQ community can actually be damaging. This sort of hip church slogan, when directed specifically toward this community, tells individuals that their entire sexual identity, an integral part of who they are, is supposedly “hated” by the congregation at large. Francis spoke not only of accepting a person’s sexual orientation, but valuing it. The language of “hate the sin, love the sinner” encourages tolerance, not acceptance, and is far from any sense of granting any value to the sexual identity of members of the LGBTQ community.

How can the church be a welcoming home if it does not come right out and express acceptance, love, and even appreciation for what the LGBTQ community can bring to their congregation? I know very few people in general who are eager to be a part of the church that does not express outwardly a sense that all are truly welcome and all are valued for who they are. Regrettably, the church has historically struggled with being welcoming to groups that society itself has ostracized. Yet the church has learned from its mistakes. Churches today have overwhelmingly more positive attitudes regarding women and racial diversity (I am not, however, making a blanket statement ignoring that problems regarding these groups are still present and negative in many churches). In these situations, the church has perhaps allowed itself to be “surprised by God,” and has accordingly taken measures to manifest whatever it is that the body of Christ truly should look like.

Despite what feels like the overwhelming majority of churches, there are a growing number of churches that have not been performing as dismally when confronted with the LGBTQ community. During a parade on National Coming Out Day in Ashland, OR at least seven churches in the area happily participated in the parade, waving rainbow flags and holding signs of welcome, encouragement, and acceptance. Pastors and congregants alike waved, smiled, and applauded their fellow marchers, creating an atmosphere of community and affirmation.

In another context, the Columbus Mennonite Church (CMC) in Ohio installed their first openly gay pastor, Mark Rupp, on September 21st. Rupp’s sexual identity and the fact that he is in a relationship with another man did not discourage the congregation, rather they went forward with the appointment despite not having the green light from their Central District Conference or the Mennonite Church USA. However, they were granted congregational discernment on the issue. Along with the installation of Rupp, the article on Mennonite.org revealed that the CMC announced three commitments that not only declared that the church would not use “sexual orientation of practice as criteria for membership,” but that it would also not be “a factor in the hiring of office and pastoral staff.”

These examples are hopefully in the company of many others like them, and they provide a glimpse into what steps the church can take regarding this issue. Instead of taking a moral high ground over the LGBTQ community, the church needs to welcome them as equals, something that cannot be achieved by mere tolerance or the avoidance of discrimination. Rather, the church needs to be active in not only accepting different sexual orientations, but also actually valuing them, recognizing too that everyone, including the LGBTQ community, has something to offer to the Christian community at large.

The question of reform must be considered, but perhaps reform needs to happen at the ground level first instead of being passed down institutionally. Churches are beginning to take a stand, and hopefully these new, radical changes slowly make their way up through the church leadership, across all denominations.

Categories
Opinions

The Culture Andy Crouch Wants To Make

The 2014 Houghton Reads book is Culture Making: Rediscovering Our Creative Calling, by Andy Crouch, the Executive Editor of Christianity Today. This book is being read by many groups around campus. Overall, it is not a bad book (yes, I have read the whole thing).

Crouch presents his case that Christians should be “makers of culture.” I could not agree more. Christians are to be a community, united in love, forming a counter-culture that displays the radical love, grace, and forgiveness of Jesus. This culture we are making together, and are to invite others into, is the Kingdom of God. But it is not this idea of culture making that I’ve got a problem with. No, my problem is with the real-life way that Crouch tried to “make culture” this summer.

In the book, Crouch talks about four postures that American Christians have taken in regard to culture. These are: Condemning (think of a fundamentalist who rants about the evils of culture while keeping a safe distance), Critiquing (a Christian who engages with culture for the sake of pointing out its flaws), Copying (picture the way Contemporary Christian Music took the form and style of secular music and inserted God into it), and finally Consuming (leaving God out of the picture and embracing the secular as default). He goes on to say that rather than embracing one of these four postures, Christians should “make culture” instead. No problem here. I agree that Christians have, far too often, engaged in one of these postures instead of being the countercultural Kingdom of God. So how do we make this culture?

MattYoungQuoteAccording to Crouch, if we want to change/make a culture, we must start small. He says that we make culture by creating cultural “goods.” These can be things like songs, books, legislation, computers, etc. A cultural good is anything we create that has the potential to change the culture around us. Again, no problem here. We all need to reclaim the transformative power of creative acts. If we see the smallest things we do as a part of making our culture and world a better place, we will find our lives invested with meaning like never before. Now onto what Crouch did this summer.

On July 1st of this year, Andy Crouch, along with 13 other Christian leaders, signed and sent a letter to President Obama. The President had announced that he planned to make an Executive Order banning all federal contractors from discriminating against potential employees based on their sexual orientation. The letter asked the President to exempt religious organizations from this order. Or, to put it bluntly, these leaders want permission for their organizations to legally discriminate against a portion of Americans. They want to remain in contract with the federal government, which means keeping all of the money that goes along with that, but be permitted to discriminate based on certain people’s sexual orientation. This is where I have a big problem with the way in which Crouch wants to make culture.

In his attempt to “make culture” Crouch introduces a “cultural good” in the form of a letter. His idea of making culture is to create a world where it is legal to discriminate and reject certain members of society, not because these people are criminals or harmful to others, but because of who they choose to love (and make love to).

As I’ve already said, I’m all for making culture. The Christian story invites us to become a part of a community that shares the love, grace, and forgiveness of God with others; but I’m not for a culture that is accepting of discrimination. I don’t see room for discrimination in the loving, graceful, forgiving way of Jesus.

Categories
Opinions

Sexual Security and a Bike Lock

In a recent interview with a senior at Stanford University, a key issue in the continuation of violence against women was revealed for the world to see.

“Some men feel that too much responsibility for preventing sexual assault has been put on their shoulders,” said the student, whose name does not deserve to be printed. “While everyone condemns sexual assault, there seems to be an assumption among female students that they shouldn’t have to protect themselves by avoiding drunkenness and other risky behaviors. Do I deserve to have my bike stolen if I leave it unlocked on the quad? We have to encourage people not to take on undue risk.” (Bloomberg)

WynnHortonQuoteFirst off, this opinion should not be generalized as the identifiable feeling of all collegiate aged men about women.  Seriously, this guy compares a woman’s sexual privacy to a bike on the quad – just violate it if you feel like it! I think that if this man is the best an Ivy-League school has to offer – we all have reason to seriously fear for the future of this country. Not all men (whilst conceding there certainly are some) are sexist, chauvinistic, rude, or the other usual condemnations associated with our sex.

However, the statement from this particular student does highlight one of the key issues at large in the battle to stop violence against women – we (men) are still failing to acknowledge our role in the situation at large.  Frat houses, for example, are notorious for their high statistics regarding rape and sexual assault. Yet they, and often their respective university presidents, fail to assign responsibility to the men, choosing instead to back up this ridiculous belief that women need to “just not go to the parties then.”  Along with these foolish ideas come phrases like: boys will be boys, men shouldn’t be expected to control themselves, she shouldn’t have been wearing that, etc.  All of which is trash.

It has been said a million times before and ignored – victims of sexual assault and rape should never be blamed for what happened to them.  I am a man and I am saying this, voicing my support for the reevaluation and reshaping of what it means to embrace masculinity in a modern culture for the sake of changing the status quo.

I do not think that men are designed in any way that could result in them being deemed as mindless brutes or animals.

I do not think that masculinity calls us to embody a sense of superiority over women.

I do not think that the responsibility to end violence against women and lead this world into a new realm of equality lies solely in the hands of women. We have a role to play as well!

So, men at Houghton, I challenge you – be respectful to the women you see everyday. Don’t catcall; don’t stare; set an example for your friends and be a role model at home for your brothers or friends. When a friend makes a sexist joke or comments about girls’ clothes or bodily features – shut him (or her) up! For those of you in relationships – think seriously about how you treat your girlfriends, fiancés, or wives. Do you actually believe that you have unfettered physical rights to her and can call upon them whenever the desire arises? You must be joking! What does that say about her dignity as a human being and her right to be respected? Try to introduce (if you’re in an existing relationship), or commit beforehand to, conversations in which you both agree on mutually self-giving expressions of affection. No-means-no implies the possibility for damaging action before actual communication.  Yes-means-yes (from both people) implies a shift in perspective, a conversation with tangible results that ranks respect for one another above personal desires.

Perhaps, in the age of one-night stands, online hookups, and 24-7 access to porn, masculinity has been too often characterized as a 6’2, macho and muscular sex machine who sleeps with women regardless of consequences and wears a phallic symbol on his sleeve (a.k.a. James Bond). If so, then now more than ever there must be a generation of men who spit in the face of Hollywood and strive to be something new. At the end of the day, you and you alone determine how you will act as a man in your friendships and relationships. I challenge you to set an example that emphasizes equality and embraces a new perspective. You can do it.

Categories
Opinions

Your Vote, Your Voice

Election season has become a monotonous time that typically has lacked the interest of many college students. But why? Why do students fail to exercise this Constitutional right as a United States citizen? Maybe it’s because students don’t think it affects them? Or perhaps they think their voice won’t be heard? Either way, when voting time comes, students remain unengaged and uninformed.

A statewide survey released by the California Voter Foundation (CVF) found that 23% of unregistered voters say they’re too busy to vote. While two-thirds of those surveyed noted that they didn’t turn out to vote because they believed that elections are controlled by special interest groups. In addition, the foundation found that 76% of nonvoters have no more than a high school diploma.
KatharineLebrecqueQuoteBased on a 2012 survey by the U.S. Census Bureau, young adults have been found to vote more often in Presidential elections than in congressional election years. Voting rates have been historically low, especially between the ages of 18 and 24, since 1964. However, within recent years, voting-turnout rates among young adults have seen a dramatic increase. It appears that students are often drawn to particular parties based on single issues or interests. For example many individuals, and not solely students, are attracted to parties that have issues on their agenda such as climate change, the economy and social welfare, and bioethics.

Yet despite these daunting facts, voting is arguably one of the most important civic opportunities available to United States citizens.  Voting does matter. Not just in presidential elections, but in local and state elections. Elected individuals represent the interests of the people. Our country was formed on the premise that we were to have a government “for the people [and] by the people.” We have a civic responsibility to exercise this right. You have a voice. You have a vote.

Alexander Buska, a senior political science major encourages students: “Vote local. Elected officials only respond to those who vote. State and town officials will be much more interested in what you have to say, and better able to accurately represent your point of view. Look at how they came out to Houghton for the ribbon cutting ceremony of the Kerr-Pegula Athletic Complex – they are plenty interested in what is going on.”

 

Moreover, these decisions and legislations made at the local, state, and federal level have a major impact on our lives. When asked, “Why don’t you vote?” responses included: “I’ll care when I pay my own bills,” or “I’ll register [to vote] eventually when I settle down.” The problem with waiting is

square-layout

that your vote counts now. Voting on elected officials affects not just the present, but the future. Your voice matters. Your vote matters, and it matters now.

So when is your next opportunity to vote? Midterm elections are November 4. You can pick up registration forms at your local county elections office, post office, library, DMV, or print out a registration form online at your state and local board of elections website. Also, be sure to request an Absentee Ballot. This can be requested by state for midterm elections at www.yourvoteyourvoice.org.

Categories
Opinions

Response to Molly Little’s Chapel

“What did you think of the chapel speaker?” It was the phrase that made its rounds across campus after Molly Little, a UN representative and former Houghton Grad, gave the opening lecture for the annual Faith and Justice Symposium. She was honest about her struggles with faith and gave no indulgence to optimism; and naturally her provocative chapel speech ignited strong opinions throughout campus. The controversy was evident. Many people even debated whether somebody like Little should be allowed to speak in chapel. All the while, others commended her for her direct and refreshingly cynical approach.

Jawin If I’m being honest I do not think anybody liked Molly Little’s talk. It is hard to watch someone share intimate moments of despair and like it – that would be sadistic – but her message was incredibly moving and her raw truth-fullness was at its very least thought-provoking. I would hope that those who appreciated Little’s speech, like myself, did so not for the sake of controversy, but to preserve the integrity of her vulnerability. That being said, not everybody was appreciative of Little’s sheer bluntness and some found her despondency off-putting. I would like to carefully remind this group that yes, Molly Little is responsible for her ideological communication, but we as listeners are equally responsible for our reactions.

It is incredibly easy to come into chapel and evaluate speakers based on our own personal  theological expectations. We want to be energized. We want to be refreshed and we want that warm feeling in our belly that reminds us that the Holy Spirit is real; but chapel isn’t about that. It is about lifting one another up and becoming one worshipping body under Christ. So when people like Molly Little come and, by their own admission, state that their “faith is a skeleton of what it used to be” and that they greatly struggle to find power in the Christian life, we shouldn’t feel offended by their theology because that is a selfish reaction to their pain. We are acting as if Little’s struggles are inconvenient to our personal lives of faith, and as a result we degrade and ostracize her from the body of believers. This type of reaction has no redemptive power. Instead, we must lift her up in prayer.

Opinions_JD_QuoteI don’t know Molly’s pain, I can’t give her an answer, but her lack of faith is not absurd. I too know of an individual who at the height of His calling proclaimed, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me,” and then rose again in glory. And if the Lord of our hearts can feel the burden of His calling and rise from the depth of despair, why do we have difficulty believing similar instances can happen and be restored in the Christian life?

You don’t need to agree with Molly Little’s ideas. You don’t even have to like what she said, but you need to be empathetic and appreciate her honesty. Would it be easier if Little’s message was all roses and rainbows? Of course. But it wasn’t and even still our God has the ability to work in her, through her and with her, because that’s who God is. His grace is not contingent on our eloquence or our eligibility. It just is, and because of this we have hope for our most despondent situations, stories and friends.

Categories
Opinions

Viva la Revolución: America’s Energy Independence

“NO Gas Here!” said printed signs hung at gas stations nationwide in 1973.  America faced a crippling oil crisis brought on by the Arab Embargo in response to the Yom Kippur War.  Imports of oil accounted for 35% of U.S. consumption when President Nixon declared America would be energy independent in a decade.  So did every president after him.  Unfortunately by 2005, America was importing 60% of its oil.

JFGVBut could President Nixon’s prediction of energy independence, albeit a bit delayed, become reality? The answer may astound you. Last year Saudi billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal spoke of fears of America’s energy and shale production as “an inevitable threat [to nations] entirely dependent on oil [exports],” and stated that “this reality is becoming a source of concern for all.”  In the last nine years, American ingenuity has reversed fifty years of importing billions of dollars of energy and has sparked an energy revolution in oil, natural gas, and coal, which was not possible just a decade ago.  In 1972, Wallace Pratt, a prophetic geologist stated “oil is in the minds of men.” This year America will become the biggest oil producer in the world surpassing Saudi Arabia and Russia. America continues to lead in the production of coal and natural gas and has been developing and maximizing alternative energies—wind, nuclear, solar, biofuels—and strengthening the conservation of energy with new innovations in insulation and fuel efficiency.  America now produces enough energy to meet 84% of its own demand and could meet 100% by the end of the decade.

U.S. energy companies have known about trapped gas in shale and tar sands since the 1940’s, but recovery was too expensive and the production yields were too low. Recent technology such as horizontal drilling and advanced geological planning have made hydraulic fracturing, herein known as fracking, less burdensome to manage and the yields have been produced on a grand scale all across the nation. The Marcellus Formation – a shale range – found under Western New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia is producing 2 million gallons a day which is more than some individual nations in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Unfortunately, Western New York gas production sits idle due to unsubstantiated safety concerns for drinking water as Pennsylvania border towns become boomtowns for jobs. The New York state moratorium continues in spite of a landmark study by the Environmental Protection Agency in 2004 which concluded fracking posed no threat to underground drinking water supplies.

The Green River Formation in Colorado is estimated to have three times more recoverable oil than Saudi Arabia’s top oil field according to energy expert Daniel Yergin.  Shale gas is expected to become 50% of America’s natural gas production by 2035 compared to only a 1% market share in 2000.  Energy experts consider the Gulf of Mexico part of the “Golden Triangle” of offshore drilling which extends to Brazil and Western Africa.  The British Petroleum deepwater spill slowed growth in the region, but “research confirmed that the microbes had eliminated much of the oil and gas that had leaked from the well,” according to PBS. Today, investment and drilling in the Gulf has rebounded.  WoodMac Energy forecasts more than $20 billion to be spent on drilling development wells alone in 2015 in the Gulf.  The U.S. Energy Department predicts that by 2035, offshore production will increase by over 80%.  The offshore renaissance is expected to account for a third of the U.S. budget and half a million workers by 2020 according to James Burgess of the energy news website Oil Price.

The lack of America’s external demand for energy has led to a shock around the world, threatening balance of power not only in Saudi Arabia, but especially in Russia. Energy strategist Daniel Yergin wrote that America’s rise as an energy producer “has a wide geopolitical impact, for it upsets a four decade old economic and political balance that has proved so durable that it even survived the upheaval that was set in motion from the collapse of the Soviet Union.”  Nearly half of Russia’s revenue comes from energy exports, so a reduction in price and a loss of a monopoly on Europe will hurt Russia.  Senator John McCain recently called Russia merely “a gas station masquerading as a country.” Energy has played a big role in Russia’s advances in Ukraine as these countries have had several energy disputes in the last decade.

Because of cheap domestic energy we could see another gilded age in manufacturing.  PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates over one million manufacturing jobs could be created in a decade due to low energy prices. The Shale Revolution has allowed the U.S. to become very competitive.  According to Bloomberg Business, “the difference in manufacturing costs between China and the U.S. has narrowed to such a degree that it’s almost negligible.” As Chinese wages increase and energy demand increases, China’s global economic and military ambitions will be thwarted by its dependence on coal, with America sitting on the world’s largest reserves.

In 1958, in a seminal moment, America’s energy dependence and geopolitical decisions were exposed when Nixon’s motorcade was chased out of Venezuela by a rock throwing mob.  Today, the Shale and Energy Revolution will propel an American renaissance that will not only secure our national interests but bring back manufacturing and jobs.  We must demand from our public officials to open up more opportunities for fracking locally in Western NY and nationally on federal lands.  If we don’t impede our own energy potential, America will not only be yesterday’s superpower, it will be tomorrow’s superpower.

Categories
Opinions

When Charity Becomes the Latest Trend

One day this past July, I logged onto my Facebook, took a scroll down my newsfeed, and was unexpectedly assaulted with a video (thank you, Facebook’s autoplay feature) of a few girls dumping buckets of water over their heads, screaming, “Ice bucket challenge!”

TOpinions_KS_Quotehe what? By now almost everyone has heard at least something about the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge, designed to raise awareness and support for Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis. A person is given a choice: either dump a bucket of ice water over her head or make a donation to the ALS Association (ranging from $100 to $10 to “a donation of any amount”). She then posts a video online, challenging friends to do the same.

ALS, or Lou Gehrig’s Disease, is a crippling disease affecting around 30,000 Americans each year. It causes the body to fail, eventually leading to death. A person will start losing muscle function, first in his legs and hands, later in his throat, until finally he asphyxiates. The disease shows no discrimination against gender, race, ethnicity, or socio-economic status. There is currently no known cure.

This in itself is enough motivation to care about ALS, isn’t it? Thanks to the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge, $115 million has been raised for the ALS Association this year, which provides aid to those affected by the disease and conducts research in hopes of soon finding a cure. Let me be clear in saying that this is a good thing. Aren’t we as Christians especially called to serve others with acts of charity? Shouldn’t we strive to be aware of the world’s needs and do our part to help?

KatieSzwejbkaAnd yet, I did not donate, nor did I film a video of water being dumped over my head for all of my Facebook friends to see. No, I’m not a heartless heathen—but I have a list of charities I support every year and it isn’t feasible for me to support everything. I can’t help but worry that some who jumped into the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge with guns ablaze will now feel less obligated or unable to help other charities they may have previously supported. I wonder what kind of impact this challenge will have on the equally important charities that didn’t go viral.

Additionally, think back to that first video I stumbled upon, with the girls gaily informing me of the Ice Bucket Challenge. Nowhere in their video or Facebook posting did they say a single thing about ALS. If I had asked, I’m fairly certain they wouldn’t be able to tell me any information about the disease. I had to wonder, did they themselves even know what they were doing this for? Did they realize the whole point is to shock your body into stillness with freezing water, mimicking the symptoms of ALS? Did they care at all about the need to raise ALS awareness? Countless videos I personally watched merely said, “Ice Bucket Challenge! Do it or donate!” without any further information or explanation. This isn’t to say all, or even the majority, of these videos were so flawed. Yet, this is what happens when charity becomes a trend and not a heartfelt desire—we see some people joining along for the ride while missing the meaning entirely.

Then there’s this idea of “donate or dump water on yourself.” Why the or? Why are we treating this challenge like a choose-your-own-adventure book? Of course not every person has the means to donate money; the option to raise awareness for the cause even if you can’t financially support it was a great idea. Why not word it, though, to dump the water over your head and give a donation if you are able? I feel this challenge has a tendency to turn charity into an avoidance tactic, a coerced measure—you’d better just give the money so you don’t have to do something unpleasant!

Support for the ALS Association is a great thing. However, we must consider the impacts of this type of “challenge.” It shouldn’t be a fun trend, completed with ignorance, or a pressured act we begrudgingly agree to do. With an attitude like that, true service and charity are overlooked and undervalued.