Category: Opinions

Categories
Opinions

Why I Don’t Care About Abortion

In the aftermath of the L.I.F.E. Club panel, a good portion of the resulting conversation has been devoted to whether or not the question “When does life begin?” was properly addressed. No matter the speaker’s opinion about the panel as a whole, all voices seemed to agree that this is vital question that needs to be addressed before any dialogue concerning abortion can occur. I have to say, I think this precondition is incredibly damaging, regardless of which position you take.

lydai copyThe motives of those who ask this question are the same: to determine whether or not abortion can be considered morally wrong, and therefore punishable by the law. Pro-lifers push toward conception. Pro-choicers push toward birth. Each wants to feel justified in their argument. They want to feel irrefutable. And so they seek out ultimatums. Is abortion murder? From each side comes either a resounding yes or no. The problem is that this becomes the beginning and end of the conversation. No middle ground can be reached. And few people have realized that this is perhaps the most irrelevant question anyone could be asking.

To begin with, let’s look at what’s being said. There are those who are pro-life. They see abortion as a definitive act of killing. Something was created, and abortion destroyed it. They want abortion to be completely illegal. They are “anti-abortion.” If that’s one side of the argument, then the other side should be… “Pro-death”? No, that’s not it. Are they “pro-abortion”? No, that’s not it either. Pro-lifers are anti-abortion, but they are facing off against those who identify themselves as pro-CHOICE. Is it just me, or are “life” and “choice” not exactly opposites? Perhaps the reason the arguments between the two camps haven’t been going anywhere is that they aren’t actually arguing about the same thing.

No one, I can guarantee you, no one besides Daniel Tosh is out there in the world swinging a sign that reads “We should have abortions!” Rather, the appeal is this: “We should have the RIGHT to have abortions!” Most of you reading this will likely believe that abortion is killing, and that killing is wrong. You’ll also most likely think that no one should have the right to kill. But since there’s also no one out there (I’m guessing) with a sign that says “We should have the right to murder!” there must be something different about abortion. There’s clearly a reason that anyone would fight to allow this action, or to contradict its immorality. So, these are the questions that we should be asking, to replace the extraneous question of life: What are the reasons for abortion? And, what can we do to eliminate those reasons?

A person’s choice to have an abortion is, of course, inspired by any number of unfortunate factors: poverty, rape, incest, age, violence, medical issues, mental instability, and any number of extreme situations— there are babies born into slavery and prostitution, babies born destined to end up abandoned.  Whether or not you agree that all of these circumstances merit an abortion, certainly you can see how some of them do, or at the very least, you can recognize the need for a system that can be responsible for the infants it prevents from being aborted. You can recognize the need for improved sex education. You can recognize the need for a change.

So, is abortion murder? Who cares? The truth is, abortion does not matter. It doesn’t. If the main bone you have to pick is simply a question of the beginning and end of life, you need to broaden your focus to include any kind of death—death from war, death from starvation, death disease. All of these deaths, including death from abortion, grow out of the same causes—poverty, power and control, lack of education, terrible situations. Untimely deaths will not cease until these causes are eradicated. So in the meantime, yes: women should have the right to have an abortion. And, no: we should not talk about whether or not that’s wrong. Because the way to prevent abortion, and war, every other kind of injustice in the world is not to tell people to “just stop.” The way to prevent it is to make it unnecessary. That’s an enterprise I think everyone can support, be they pro-life or pro-choice.

 

Categories
Opinions Two Views

Two Views: What are the moral dimensions surrounding the immigration debate?

In 1783, George Washington proclaimed, “the bosom of America is open to receive not only the opulent and respectable stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all nations and religions, whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges”. Rhetoric portraying America as a melting pot and refuge for those desiring freedom has echoed throughout our history; however, immigrants have rarely been accepted with open arms. The debate over the impact of immigrants on the economy is well documented, but unsettled. Restrictionists argue that immigrants rob native-born Americans of their jobs, and cost society through their dependence on public assistance. Other criticism surrounds the threat of a changed culture stemming from a general xenophobia which hopes to retain a homogenous national identity.

peterThere’s a paradox in international law regarding immigration. The right of humans to freely leave any country for economic reasons and political refuge is guaranteed by the 1948 Declaration of Human Rights. However, the declaration also recognizes that the “will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government”, which establishes the framework allowing governments to decide who its citizens may be, as well as delegating control over their borders. Essentially, people have a right to leave their country, but no right to enter another.

The moral dimension of granting political or religious asylum is pitted against the economic welfare and nationalistic sentiments of countries in this debate. The moral dimensions of the debate would seem to discredit “xenophobic” fears of illegal immigration, but threats to national security must also be taken into account. The vast and numerous geographic channels that make it possible for people to be smuggled into the country also ferry drugs and weapons across our border. The conservative fear of an insecure border is legitimate; however, a desire to physically secure the border doesn’t discount the possibility of immigrants being accepted into the country via legal channels. Often these two views are at odds, but shouldn’t be. There are millions of undocumented immigrants living in the United States, and more will enter the country illegally if policy allowing a broader entry of immigrants isn’t employed.

A large population of undocumented immigrants comprises the agricultural sector of America’s economy. In California, agricultural operations have relied on undocumented Mexican workers to provide produce at lower prices. It’s also argued that these jobs are so undesirable that Americans are unwilling to perform them. Undoubtedly, we’ve benefitted economically from this group of people, so it would seem that they’re due a debt of hospitality through the naturalization of citizenship. It’s also undeniable that these people drain public resources, but the only way these people will be able to contribute to society is if they’re accepted into it. The U.S. can’t support allowing entry to every person who desires it, but could improve the situation by amnestying current undocumented workers, and allowing more people into the country than the current quota system allows.

America wasn’t established for the preservation of a white/European nationalism, but as a sanctuary for the persecuted. George Washington dignified foreign peoples wishing to gain entry into America as “respectable strangers” worthy of sharing in our established rights. As Christians, we should be mindful of the conditions (economic, political, and religious) that lead immigrants to our borders, and weigh them against the costs of their entry into the country.

Leviticus 19:34

You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.

Categories
Opinions Two Views

Two Views: What are the moral dimensions surrounding the immigration debate?

In 1892, Annie Moore became the first immigrant to cross the threshold of Ellis Island and soon came to symbolize the 12 million immigrants who entered America between 1892 and 1954. Since then, millions of other people like her have immigrated to America in the hopes of attaining a better life.

But the Commission on Immigration Reform has concluded that the number of legal immigrants is too high, leaving us with the question of how to deal with the Annie Moores of today – a difficult but important question for Christians to consider.

rebekahUnfortunately, as Drs. Mark Amstutz and Peter Meilaender explain in “Public Policy and the Church: Spiritual Priorities,” “Christian groups have become somewhat noteworthy for issuing unhelpful statements” about this topic. Many Christians argue for an open-door policy loosely based on biblical passages about migration, hospitality and human dignity without due consideration of the differences between biblical culture and our own.

So how should Christians respond to the immigration issue? First, they need to abandon the idea that the Bible prescribes a particular policy suitable to the U.S. Clearly, the Bible says nothing about it, and although Scripture certainly endorses the value of human dignity, that principle is too general to offer specific guidance on the issue of immigration policy. Second, Christians need to reconsider the moral dimensions that surround the issue, specifically whether immigration limits are morally justifiable, and if so, whether there is a moral imperative to give preference to one group of immigrants over another.

Here Dr. Meilaender offers a way forward. He believes that Christians can make a strong moral case for immigration limits and argues that we determine the morality of such limits based on our relative obligations to two basic groups of people: members and potential members of American society. He explains that although “we owe something to each person simply by virtue of his or her humanity,” we have special obligations to persons “for whom we bear special responsibilities” – e.g., our fellow members of American society. On Meilaender’s view, defending their interests takes precedence over our obligations to outsiders. Christians often view this as fundamentally self-interested, but Meilaender disagrees; he argues that we are obligated “to preserve [our] common life” and that such an obligation stems not from “a narrow focus on personal self-interest” but from an obligation to fellow members of American society. In other words, once Annie Moore becomes a member of our society, we bear a special responsibility for her – one that is stronger than our responsibility to potential members.

But this naturally raises another question: Whom should we allow to immigrate? We could randomly choose immigrants based on the lottery system, or we could give preference to immigrants based on an agreed-upon set of qualifying circumstances (what I call a categorical system). Whereas the lottery system acts indiscriminately, the categorical approach allows officials to take morally compelling circumstances into account. Say, for instance, that members of Annie’s nuclear family are U.S. citizens or that Annie can’t return to her own country due to a reasonable fear of persecution. In both cases, our moral obligation towards her exceeds our obligation to immigrants in general – thus indicating that the categorical system is, in at least some instances, morally compelling.

Politicians and the media largely ignore the issue of legal immigration, choosing instead to focus on the (much more controversial) issue of illegal immigrants. Currently, however, 1.1 million people legally immigrate to the U.S. each year, and Americans need to respond with moral sensitivity to the high number of Annie Moores who desire to enter the U.S. through the appropriate channels.

Categories
Opinions

No Longer the Face of Rebellion

Tattoo. The word strikes fear into the hearts of some nervous suburban mothers whose minds are flowed with visions of hardened sailors and ruthless convicts. Or does it? The stigma that once surrounded tattoos and those who wear them is shifting slowly but surely following the radical revolution that has been taking place in tattooing.

tattoosRecently I watched Eric Schwartz’ documentary Tattoo Nation in which he traces the evolution of the art of tattooing beginning at the time when having a tattoo meant one of two things: you had either been in prison and served hard time, or you had been a sailor in the Navy. Prison tattooing is really where the art of tattooing as such took off. Inmates had to use handmade needles and were forced to work in the limited color palette of black and gray, with ink made of ash and soap. However it was the diversity and the lack of cohesion in prison tattooing that gave leverage to the rise of individuality in tattooing. The black and gray palette and fine line work of prison tattoos became the foundation for expansion in the world of the art of tattooing. In Tattoo Nation, Charlie Cartwright and Jack Rudy are inspired by the techniques they saw nurtured behind prison walls, and in conjunction with their creativity, they became the pioneers of the tattoo industry as we know it today.

Even as the craft began to expand, fear and judgments still lingered, as many were unable to erase the negative ties etched in their minds between tattoos and prison. Yet as tattooing kept gaining traction, artists expanded their clientele from ex-cons and sailors to include anyone who walked in off of the street. As their clientele expanded, so did the artist’s repertoire. Legends like Ed Hardy, “the Godfather of modern tattoo,” both helped to lay the foundation for Traditional tattoo art and introduced the art of Japanese style tattooing to America.

Slowly the revolution of individuality in tattooing and its expansion as an art form has further introduced the idea of self-expression to the world of tattooing. Self-expression in tattooing is akin to self-expression in any other type of art medium, the only difference is that this canvas is living and breathing. The stigma against tattoos has started to fade as they’ve become much more than designators for sailors and ex-cons. Their ability to be individualized has made them ways to capture meaning and significance in a person’s life.  In a digital age, tattoos are a concrete form of expression; they cannot be lost in the recesses of the Internet or deleted, rather the art becomes a true part of the person and their identity. Alongside the deep significance and personal meaning they can (and typically do) carry for people, tattoos can also serve as permanent accessories and have become a type of rendezvous for fashion and art. Although perhaps still odd to many in the art world, tattooing has the potential to be an expressive and beautiful art form that can be shared as easily as a handshake.

The revolution in the tattoo industry has been accompanied (begrudgingly so) by a corresponding shift in attitude amongst the general public toward the tattooed world from a negative one, to one which is more accepting and understanding, and perhaps bordering on supportive in some cases. However it’s no secret that the professional world is one of the last holdouts. A scenario that is quite common today is that of worried parents all but threatening unemployment and homelessness if their children get tattoos in the hopes of scaring them into making “smarter” decisions.  However, while this argument still carries some weight today, it is essential that this bias in the professional workforce be put to rest. Using the presence (or visibility) of tattoos as an excuse not to hire an applicant gives the owner the ability to take away the worker’s bodily autonomy, which is unacceptable in this day and age. Not to mention that discriminating based on the presence of tattoos is akin to discriminating based on haircut or even birthmarks. However, an allowance should be made if the art is unfit for the workplace (such as explicit words and images).

Tattoos no longer necessarily scream “rebellion” and “questionable character;” rather they’ve become an artistic way to define oneself. In light of the evolution of tattooing from a pseudo-art past time for sailors and convicts to a modern art form, our society should reflect a corresponding change toward appreciation of art instead of judgment.

 

Categories
Opinions

L.I.F.E. Club Explains Panel Discussion

L.I.F.E. Club would like to offer a response to the article criticizing the panel discussion. Regarding the preparation, we had a last-minute cancellation because one panelist had to attend to tragic family matters. We contacted professors from diverse disciplines to fill his spot, but all had previous plans. We will gladly include Pro-choice panelists when individuals are willing to publicly advocate this stance.

lifeL.I.F.E. Club believes that God creates life, and life is precious. Although all panelists were Pro-life, they acknowledged different views in varied circumstances. Perhaps our intentions would have been clarified if titled “An Abortion Discussion from Various Christian Perspectives.” Dean Jordan was open-minded, hence his inclusion in the panel. Each panelist’s view played a vital role in the discussion.  Labeling someone a “Bible thumper” was a personal insult, rather than a refutation for his arguments. Furthermore, no Christian can prove that the Bible is a metaphor. Whether metaphorical or not, the value of human life as created by God is clearly communicated throughout Scripture. Accordingly, the first question addressed was, “When does life begin?”

In regards to the panel announcement email: it was not meant to appall anyone; there are countless photos we could have chosen if our purpose was to “horrify” everyone. We intentionally worded the title as a question to get people thinking about how abortion has been referred to as “A Modern Day Holocaust”. We sought to evaluate the truth value of this metaphor, NOT to accuse anyone. We did not blame anyone for perpetuating a Holocaust, nor did we equate anyone to Nazis. Attendees who listened heard that panelists did not relate abortion to a new Holocaust because the Holocaust eradicated innocent lives due to pure evil hatred, while abortion does not typically occur due to a mother’s hatred of her fetus. The email stated that discussion would feature questions such as “What does the Bible say about abortion?” and “When does life really begin?” It encouraged people to ask questions and discuss stances. Given those facts, we do not understand how it “suggested that one viewpoint would automatically dominate the event”. Questions were open-ended so they could be addressed in further detail, which is what happened. We recognize that there are various perspectives related to abortion, but time did not allow for us to discuss each one. We trusted that audience members would question and comment about Pro-choice views when given the opportunity. We did not anticipate everyone to gain a full understanding or acceptance of every issue discussed, but hoped that this would induce future conversation.

Even on a campus that claims to live out Christian ideals, we cannot expect all God’s children to agree upon a “correct response” to contentious topics. Everybody interprets Scripture differently no matter which denomination we identify ourselves with. Incontrovertibly, individuals will not agree with every chapel service but can evaluate their own understanding of Scripture, instead of criticizing everything the speaker said with which they disagreed.

We truly apologize if we offended anyone. Our goal was to promote deep thought about issues which often remain silent in our community. All positions cannot be understood if we are afraid to begin talking, for fear of offending people whose beliefs differ from our own. We think the panel was not a “disappointment,” but rather a time to reflect on our opinions concerning this matter as it relates to our lives as Christians. Panelists believed that we should sympathetically support those who have been affected by abortion. We recognize that though everyone acknowledges different views, as believers, we are united by the Word of God, which declares that love will triumph above all dissension.

 

Categories
Opinions

Hatchets, Fire, and Other Fun Parenting Techniques

Over the last few weeks a few of my friends on “The Facebook” have posted an article from The Atlantic entitled “The Overprotected Kid” by Hanna Rosin.

The article centers on “playgrounds” in North Wales, UK that are essentially a junk heap of objects that children can play in. The idea is that if children are able to tackle seemingly dangerous scenarios (building forts, lighting fires, etc.) they will better understand the mechanics of such things and gain confidence. The article’s tagline states, “A preoccupation with safety has stripped childhood of independence, risk taking, and discovery—without making it safer. A new kind of playground points to a better solution.”

childredUnsurprisingly the article has gained some attention and thus I see it posted by varying groups of my Facebook friends. Being at an age (25) where I have friends both still in college and reaching well into adulthood I have an opportunity to see decades of opinions. And, consequently, I see and hear a lot on the topic of “parenting techniques.”

And parenting techniques, quite frankly, baffle me. The easy argument would be: I am not a parent. But more than that the topic seeps into a greater world view that I just don’t understand.

Having a “parenting technique” seems to be something new since I was a child. A quick guess would be that this has to do with technology. In the same way that teenage girls take 100 selfies to get just the right one, mothers and fathers are saving those sunlit living room photos for the next blog post on whatever Christian or Hipster website they blog through. And every other parent is reading it and seeing their inferiority. So they, and consequently all of us, overanalyze everything.

And it drives me crazy.

I just don’t believe that my parents (or generations before them) had a “technique” in raising us. OF COURSE they had rights and wrongs. There was a reason my parents did not homeschool us, that we attended cultural events regularly, that we were not allowed to watch TV every day or allowed to talk back. But I think my parents saw that as something they dealt with as it came- knowing they wanted to instill good moral values and respectful children. What I see now is a crazed attempt to plan a perfect child who grows into a depression-and-anxiety-free adult.

So back to the article. A playground where children can play with stuff and light fires with minimal supervision.

Sure, fine. Except I don’t understand why it is necessary for so many of the folks who posted this article.

The article focuses on a middle-class populated area. There really isn’t space for kids to “spread their wings.” Instead the crappy alternative is a pile of junk. Scraps and trash litter the floor, rotting couches strewn in the photos. This might be the sad alternative to those kids but my friends posting it are from rural West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, and even here.

So I find myself baffled and frustrated. Frustrated because I think if we stopped overanalyzing things and let things happen we would end up with kids who love the outdoors and express empathy for fellow human beings. Baffled because I can’t imagine a parent who thinks putting their children in a caged area with controlled fire is a better courage builder than exploring the woods or making a friend from a different social, economic, or racial background.

There are things to worry about. OF COURSE THERE ARE. Kidnapping is terrifying and so is hitting your head. But as the article points out- that stuff has not stopped since we began over-analyzing and implementing these “parenting techniques.”

It makes me so grateful for my childhood and how I was raised. My parents both worked, we all went to public school in a poor area. We were bound to do stupid things and get knocked around a bit. I had well-educated interesting GOOD parents and a stable home. But not everyone around me did and so I inherited some of those bruises too which I count only as good.

When he was 8 my parents bought my brother a hatchet-yes A HATCHET. He and his friends would go into the woods by themselves to hack away at old logs. My sister, being our extrovert, would join with masses of bored teenagers in the evenings looking for things to do.

We were expected to call if we were going to miss dinner and to do well in school. We were expected to sit quietly in church and concerts. My parents were stringent but we were allowed to explore our world as best we could.

And perhaps more importantly than the freedom given us in our own backyard was the freedom given us with our friends. Occasionally our parents would question the quality of a person of interest but generally they respected our judgment.

I learned as much in the broken-down trailers and smoke-filled homes of my friends as I have anywhere. I learned of my privilege. I learned to help out in scary situations and how to cope. I learned that kids with reduced lunches had them for a reason. I learned that fathers that were scary went hand-in-hand with mothers that were frightened and much of my classmate’s life would be spent trying to gingerly navigate that. I learned that poverty and hungry and fear and neglect and abuse were all rolled into a crazy cycle.

I am surprised that these kinds of risks are not mentioned in this article since I see them wrapped into the same kind of over-protection it’s talking about. And I see it wrapped in the same kinds of “parenting techniques.”

I know these things are risky. There is really horrible stuff that can happen. But freedom to explore, befriend and fumble creates fiber, embeds humanity and opens eyes. Just like we need exposure to antibodies to create immunities we need experience to grabble with life.

Often people say “when you have kids you will understand.” And maybe that’s part of the problem, this belief that our kid somehow has a chance to be THE BEST EVER. I just hope if that day ever comes I can take a breath, hand over a bag of gluten-free vegan kale chips, and tell my kid to come back before it gets dark. Oh – and no fire, just no.

Categories
Opinions

Working For an Uncertain Future

lydiaThis past Wednesday was HELP Day, the day upon which I usually rollover in my bed at about 10 am and sleep-think to myself, “Why can’t this day occur on a Friday so we can have a long weekend?”  This year, however, I was awakened early to the realization of what HELP Day signified in my life.

I had a senior seminar group critique that was rescheduled to take place on HELP Day. My fellow art majors and I are in the process of preparing our work for the senior show, with a looming deadline set in late April. There are times when I feel as though my past years of art classes have been leading me towards this ultimate goal, as they should, and then there are times when I feel that I’ve been dropped into my senior year at random, scrambling to fully realize what my art is even about. In that respect, all of us in the group seemed to be testing the waters that day. As an example of print size for some of our projects, Professor Rhett pulled out an image he had printed. It depicted a ripped and weathered manuscript covered in what looked like Sanskrit. He explained that it was recently discovered sheet music, written in organ tablature notation by a 15-year-old Johann Sebastian Bach. “Gee,” said a fellow student, “What am I doing with my life?”

There we were, on the day of preparation for our graduation after four long years of study, sitting around a table looking over the fruits of our labor, and we were questioning whether or not it had all been one big waste of time. Our culture looks up to Renaissance men and women, innovators with unique life stories who achieve far above and beyond the norm. Benjamin Franklin became a self-made man starting at the tender age of 12, and on top of his numerous contributions to the United States as a country, was also the creator of nine indispensable inventions. Steve Jobs was a college dropout who completely revolutionized the computer industry. Daily our televisions and newsfeeds are filled with stories of one prodigy or another, a 6-year-old who can sing like Aretha Franklin, a Pakistani teen raising awareness for education rights.

It’s a tough standard to be faced with when contemplating the very strong possibility of being unemployed following graduation. Several of my alumni friends searched for over a year before finding a job, and in many cases they were eventually forced to settle for a job they dislike. Two simultaneous and contrasting truths seem to be held in the minds of every 20-something in America right now: first, that they most definitely do not want to be stuck in a 9 to 5 job that they only tolerate in order to pay the bills. They want to change the world. They want to do something that they love. And second, that the job climate is tentative at best, and they’re not entirely certain how they will survive. In light of this paradox, what exactly does a viable career path look like in present day America? “Pulling yourself up by your bootstraps” is no longer a realistic option, or even an option at all.

When I was making my plans for life after high school, whether or not to attend Houghton was not a question. College was what I’d been advised was best since my very first day of kindergarten. My interests in writing and making art were only ever highly encouraged. Not once was I cautioned that I should choose a more marketable subject in which to major. I was told, without hesitation, to follow my dreams. But with the arrival of HELP Day came the knowledge that there is no opportunity guaranteed for me. What has my liberal arts education truly accomplished? It’s made me a “citizen of the world.” It’s encouraged me to think critically. Are these skills that will pay my rent and cover my loans? Or are they only useful to me under circumstances in which I already have a steady income? Please don’t mistake me—I value my years at Houghton. I am grateful for all that I’ve learned here, and for the connections I have made with professors who care about my future and my well-being. I do not doubt for a second that it will pay off—in the long term. Short term, however, I am wondering–what can I do with my life?

 

Categories
Opinions Two Views

Two Views: Are Non-profit Careers Necessary for Christian Students?

I don’t think it is necessary for Christians to steer their careers toward nonprofit work or the helping professions. I think Christians should steer their careers towards the skills and passions the Lord has blessed them with and that they have gained throughout life. As Christians, we can often get wrapped up in thinking a calling only means becoming a full time missionary or being a pastor. Though some are called into those fields, many are not. A calling can be in almost any place of employment, whether it is a “helping profession” or “non-helping profession”. It could be a stock broker, a realtor, a computer engineer, or a music teacher; we can still serve God wherever we are working.

MichelleWith that being said, what about the Christians who do have the skills and passions that can be used in a nonprofit or go into a help-related profession?  These Christians must still be wary of the implications behind this line of work. Sometimes Christians jump into this realm of work thinking that since they are working for a nonprofit organization or are in the “helping profession” they are automatically “helping” and serving other people. Unfortunately, just the intention of “helping”, especially internationally could actually hurt those they are trying to help and serve.

Our society in the West often promotes the idea that we know everything and have all the answers to the world’s problems. In the book When Helping Hurts by Brian Fikkert, Fikkert talks about this issue and the unconscious “god complex” that many Christians in the West have. This “god complex” is a way we sometimes act towards the “economically poor,” in that we are superior and they are inferior. We believe that if we provide the “things” the poor are lacking they will rise out of poverty and have better lives. Though this can be a part of the solution, solely giving out monetary or material goods will not solve the issue of poverty. I am not trying to steer people away from this field of work (I myself hope to work in this field one day) but as Christians, and really anyone who steers their career toward non-profit work, we need to be very aware of this false concept.

When we do approach the nonprofit and helping professions world with the humble understanding that we do not have all the answers to poverty, and that money and material goods will not solve all the world’s problems, we can then be a small part of the process of changing people’s lives. Throughout my college experience, I have gained a better understanding of what this looks like through becoming more culturally sensitive, looking at poverty with a bottom-up holistic approach, and realizing I do not have all the answers. In Bryant Myer’s book Walking with the Poor, he talks about this holistic or transformational form of development which is “seeking positive change in the whole of human life materially, socially, psychologically, and spiritually”. When we approach these fields of work this way, we will not only go in with the right intentions but also the right mindset.

At the end of the day, no matter what field of work we as Christians go into, whether it’s working as a financial planner for a corporation or as a development worker in Guatemala, God can use us in those places in unexpected ways.

 

Categories
Opinions Two Views

Two Views: Are Non-profit Careers Necessary for Christian Students?

It seems quite natural to assume that a Christian’s vocation lies somewhere in the nonprofits.  Their goal of serving the public seems to mesh well with the Christian calling of serving others.  Why would any Christian look for employment in a company that exists to maximize shareholders’ wealth?  Well, if this model describes all for-profit companies, then that general assumption would be warranted; however, many charitable organizations are finding that the for-profit model allows them freedom, and that this extra freedom is worth any tax incentive that the government can offer.

cicNIKA Water, a small for-profit bottled water company, donates 100% of its profits to bring clean water and safe sanitation to less developed areas around the world.  Jeff Church, Co-Founder of NIKA, claims that the for-profit model allows them more autonomy over their giving and doesn’t tie them down to donors.  He stated, “NIKA’s model is one that doesn’t need to rely on economic cycles or donor priorities but rather it uses the market place to create the profits which are then contributed back into the causes.  Businesses such as NIKA are challenging to get to a critical mass level but if done correctly they can result in a steady stream of profits to be donated.”

NIKA isn’t alone in their philosophy.  Companies around the country are foregoing the tax benefits and other incentives of a nonprofit and adopting the for-profit model.  Toms Shoes, commonly mistaken as a nonprofit company, adopted the model for similar reasons.  Blake Mycoskie, founder of Toms, stated, “We’ve never had to ask anyone for a donation and that shows that you can sustain giving through the power of commerce.”  This charitable trend towards the for-profit model has led to the creation of two new entities: the benefit corporation and the L3C.  These dual-purpose organizations focus on turning a profit as well as creating a general public benefit.  The tax exemptions vary for each, and though there are obvious issues with the dual-purpose model, I mention these new types of corporations because of what they highlight.  They show that society is seeing business in a new light.  People are starting to understand both the importance of the profit seeking model and the importance of using it for the public good.  All this to say, if Christians limit themselves to seeking only nonprofit work, they are not only failing to see the big picture, but could also be missing out on for-profit companies who are just as focused on serving the public.

Now, for the Christians who have no issue with the whole for-profit vs. nonprofit debate but still find “the helping professions” more noble than the others I would again say the same thing.  It’s not that going into the medical field, missions, or any of the obvious helping professions (as I’ve termed them) is wrong but it is important for Christians not to limit themselves based on their preconceived ideas of a worthy calling.

A passage from Matthew comes to mind: “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you who practice lawlessness.”

Why do I mention this?  Because in the grand scheme of things Christians who are overly concerned about whether to work in nonprofit or for-profit businesses, helping professions or business management, have most likely missed the point.  You can spend your entire life looking for occupations that fit well into a “Christian” resume but God’s calling should trump all.  Keep an open mind, follow the call of Christ, and don’t let the negative connotations of a for-profit business inhibit you from living out God’s call in the for-profit world.

 

Categories
Opinions

L.I.F.E. Club Panel Disappoints

I was horrified when I first received the L.I.F.E. club email stating in big bold letters “Abortion: A Modern Day Holocaust?” that was accompanied by the feet of what appeared to be an infant.  I was horrified not because of my views on abortion, but because of the way the e-mail presented the event. The email claimed to be a panel “discussion” yet the way information was presented did not suggest any “discussion” would occur.  Instead the email suggested that one viewpoint would automatically dominate the event. In addition to my horror, we must realize that even in this small community; there are most likely people who have experienced the effects of abortion to one degree or another. Therefore I do not feel that we should abruptly equate our fellow sisters and brothers to Nazis. Regardless of the impressions I received from the email, I decided to attend, hoping that researched opinions and detailed thought would be respectfully presented.

allysonSadly my hope was, for the most part, in vain–the panel quickly veered in one direction and rarely slowed down to think about other avenues of opinion.  However, though the conversation repeatedly traveled in one direction, I as well as fellow students, were very thankful to have Dean Jordan present. He continually inserted thought-provoking responses that were honest; reminding the students that there are not easily deduced answers when it comes to society’s issue of abortion. However, this was not as true of the other two speakers.

The male guest speaker was a Bible-thumper, who continually repeated kitschy catchy phrases such as, “We have the World View, and then we have the Word View” or “God is Scripture and Scripture is God.” I assure you, Scripture is not cut and dry. Issues dealing with morality are rarely-if ever- black and white. Yes John 1 does say, “In the beginning was the word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” but the Bible speaks in metaphor. As one student at the panel pointed out, there are thousands of denominations within the Protestant Church alone: clearly believers do not commonly agree on many issues regarding the hermeneutics of scripture. In relation to this, Dean Jordan again pointed us to the important realization that the Bible never addresses abortion, but instead discusses the value of life as a theme prevalent within the Bible. We should approach abortion as intellectuals who can support opinions within secular communities, not just as believers who speak up in our small, faith-based town.

The female guest speaker reverted to a repeated tactic of statistical references throughout the discussion, and at one point admitted to looking up facts online recently to ensure she would have information to bring to the panel.  Statistics work for initial effect, but we have heard them before and we will hear them again. When bombarded with statistics, one does not often come away with new thoughts to dwell on, but rather one comes away with a jumble of disorienting facts that are hard to process. Also this guest speaker was a Catholic and I, like other students, expected the discussion to at least briefly deal with the differences between Catholic and Protestant viewpoints on contraception, but this was never formally addressed. Instead, references were made to the differing thoughts, but time was not devoted to discussing this rift within the Church.

Lastly, the discussion was not clearly focused from the beginning. I expected the first question to be a starting point that dealt with the definition of when life truly starts. This question was only addressed at the end, when a student asked for individualized definitions from each panelist.

Overall I was disappointed. The issue of abortion is regarded as a very heated discussion both inside the church and within the secular world. Students should experience a discussion that holds differing opinions respectfully presented in a way that stimulates an individual’s thought instead of staunching it. Students who are not encouraged to carefully think about issues will not be ready to confidently present his/her own thoughts when given the chance later in life.

Next time the L.I.F.E Club creates a panel discussion, I suggest they bring in a pro-choice opinion–there are academics in our community who hold this view. I also propose they find more readily equipped panelists to argue each side.  This campus also holds people who have devoted time and energy into Pro-Life viewpoints through continual research from both a Christian perspective and a secular perspective.  Once again, I was extremely glad that Dean Jordan had a voice in this discussion, but I wish the panel had been better prepared and more diverse.