Category: Opinions

Categories
Opinions

The Greenest Grass is Where You Water It

“We are approaching the end of civilization. Take one last look, so you remember what it is like,” I joked with the student I was bringing to Houghton from the Rochester airport. Yet here we are, from all over the world, coming to Houghton in droves. The land flowing with milk and corn, and enough cows for each Houghton student to have at least two.

To the non-Houghton student, Houghton is an odd place with nothing to do. To those of us who have been here for four years it is even odder. Many of us often wonder why we are still here with so little to do. It is probably not “location, location, location,” the main reason real estate agents can sell a piece of property, because Houghton is near nothing. Walmart and Wegmans are over 30 minutes away, and the nearest mall is farther. Coffee shops with windows that provide natural light to bask in are a dream, wishful thinking, because it takes longer to get to one than hours of homework that need to be done. Movie theaters are in the same boat. It is difficult to imagine how life can be lived without these necessities. Aren’t they necessary for us to learn how to live in the real world?

Speaking of the real world, how can Houghton’s location possibly relate in any way to it? The real world is full of diversity (religions, people groups, beliefs, languages, sexualities, ideas, and backgrounds to name a few), opportunities to encounter the unknown or new, maturity and knowledge in discussing controversial issues, knowledge of how the world works, comfort and freedom of expression in art, clothing, piercings, skin and ideas, independence in decision making, and lastly privacy, knowing that not everyone is going to be in your business because it is their duty. These would be huge benefits if Houghton was located somewhere else. We would have opportunities to learn how to interact with and execute these functions of the real world.

Lois LeeteMany of the attributes of the real world we seem to be lacking are relational. The tangible places to go are often places you go with people, and the intangibles are all people-related. It could be argued that we do not have the manpower, as it were, in diversity or maturity here on campus. However, if you cannot learn to enjoy life with people who are similar (with many small and some major differences) how can you expect to enter into a diverse world and handle yourself with maturity and dignity? Houghton affords you the opportunities to learn how to invest and cultivate meaningful relationships because there is not much else to do.

Everything becomes an opportunity to build relationships, to learn more about your fellow humans and how they function. It provides the opportunity to learn how to be a friend and care about other people. Whereas, in a busier place you would be too distracted with things to do to invest in people the way we can in Houghton. Often, when I ask why people haven’t transferred it is because of the friendships they have formed. While in Houghton we learn to love people like Jesus loves us. We can practice loving others so that when we are done here we can go out into the world and love our neighbor no matter who they are.

When you learn to love everyone, that begins to define every experience. You can go anywhere and be content because you have learned to love and love can go with you everywhere – to both rural and urban places in any and every country – and you can be content no matter what is or is not in a particular location as far as diversity or things to do. There will always be people to love, who will make wherever you are living a place to practice love, and ultimately your home.

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

Do You Live in a Generational Bubble?

After four years at this college, I have heard my share of depreciating remarks about the “Houghton bubble.” We’re a geographical bubble. A religious bubble. Perhaps a socio-economic bubble, and sometimes even a racial bubble. And none of these bubbles are bubbles you want to live in, since living in a bubble means residing in a state of relative ignorance and naiveté, cut off from the rest of civilization in a more-or-less pathetic way. People who live in bubbles are clueless. They make sweeping and misdirected assumptions about the world outside their bubble. They don’t get it. Now, to be frank, I’m not so sure that Houghton is a bubble. At least, Houghton doesn’t have to be a bubble for anyone. However, this doesn’t mean that we’re not in danger of slipping into bubble life, at certain points.

abbyHere is a kind of bubble that you may not have thought about before: generational bubbles. College students, perhaps more than any other demographic, live in a generational bubble, since to be a residential college student is to live entirely among one’s peer group. We share rooms with our peers. We eat with, attend class with, study with, and hang out with them. We are constantly around others our age. But isn’t that the point? It’s the “best” age group and a high concentration of the age group to boot. No wonder your college years are the “best” time of your life!

This is bubble thinking at its worst. College students are not self-sufficient unto their own age group. We need friendships with those from other generations, whether younger or older. In part, we need these relationships in order to counteract bubble life. Being friends with people who are younger or older helps us to get outside of ourselves and remember that non-college students have lives and worries too. Getting to know empty nesters, for instance, offers us insight into the lives of our own parents. Meeting the parents of young children makes us feel embarrassed about our own pretense to busyness and sleep-deprivation. Interacting with the children themselves is, usually, plain-old delightful.

Moreover, although we toss around phrases like “older and wiser” with carelessness, there is truth to the idea. We ought to treat experience with living as something of great value, and accordingly, we should seek out those from older generations. Furthermore, we ought to put the experience of these people to use by asking for advice, in mundane and deep matters both. In some cases, we will reject the advice upon reflection, but the practice of asking for advice is still a helpful one, since we practice not-knowing-it-all when we ask for advice. Additionally, when we find ourselves returning repeatedly to a particular person for advice, we form a mentoring relationship. Or, as I like to think of it, a well-established mentor relationship is a kind of apprenticeship, in which the skill being learned is how to live well.

Thankfully, Houghton students are well positioned to counteract the generational bubble. A happy side effect of attending a tiny college in the middle of nowhere is that we have an abundance of opportunities to meet and get to know people from other generations. Our professors are an obvious starting point, as are Houghton’s staff members.  Churches, bible studies, and small groups are another good place to look. But, regardless of how we counteract the bubble, this much is clear to me: there is more to life than being a college student. Interacting with other generations will help us remember this.

 

Categories
Opinions

What are Peace and Reconciliation to Me, Anyway?

With the popularity of the term ‘peace’, there seems to be a rather simplistic or impersonal understanding for its potential significance in daily life. For example, my early understanding of peace was limited to it being a lack of explicit violence and conflict altogether.  Further contemplating the nature of peace during my time at Houghton has challenged me to view reconciliation as a means to peace, moving beyond considering only the explicit indicators of violence and conflict. While studying ideals of peace in the classroom, however, there had been a disconnect between my thought process and my daily actions. I wanted to implement reconciliation and sustained peace in my personal life but lacked a heartfelt understanding of how to do so.

brittanyThere has been some recent media attention on reconciliation in the nation of Rwanda as April 7 commemorated twenty-years since the 1994 genocide. In reflecting upon the last twenty years in Rwanda, my perceptions of reconciliation have been transformed, challenging me to more personally consider the deep nature of peace through reconciliation as a transformative process for both individuals and communities. This transformation began in the spring of 2013 as I had the opportunity to study in Rwanda through the GoED study abroad program. Classes during this semester included a study of Rwanda’s extensive history, highlighting the continual reconciliation process since 1994. In April 1994, approximately 800,000 to 1,000,000 people were killed within 100 days as a result of a complicated political, social, and historical conflict. Hearing first-hand accounts from survivors of the genocide began to stir difficult questions in my mind, challenging my reflection upon an individual’s reconciliation and peace building processes. A specific story of continual transformation between two Rwandan individuals has particularly influenced me in my daily reflections.

On a particularly sunny day in February 2013, the ten other GoED students and I sat under the tin roof of our outdoor classroom in Kigali (the capital city of Rwanda). We were introduced one-by-one to John and Grace*, two middle-aged Rwandan citizens who had come to share their personal experiences of reconciliation since April 1994. Awaiting details of their stories, I noticed the deep scar across Grace’s face and the absence of her right hand, prefacing the depth of her and John’s accounts.

On April 29, 1994 John violently attacked Grace after committing a series of murders amongst a group of soldiers and civilians. John killed the baby on Grace’s back and maimed her, assuming that she was left for dead. Grace, however, survived and remained in a small Rwandan hospital for nearly two months. During the numerous days she recovered in the hospital, Grace was overwhelmed with despair, crying out angrily to God and grappling with difficult questions she has yet to fully answer. Within her questioning, Grace began the long journey of healing as she prayed for strength to forgive whoever her perpetrator had been.

Grace longed to know inner and communal reconciliation in the years following the genocide.  She became a respected member of her community and was provided opportunities for leadership. In 2001, Grace became a community representative for May Truth Prevail, an organization established to facilitate the reconciliation of perpetrators with genocide survivors and/or their families. While seeking reconciliation with another man through this organization, John came upon Grace for the first time since 1994.

Having long desired reconciliation for his previous actions, John knew he needed to reveal the truth and confront his aggressions towards Grace, who did not initially recognize John as her perpetrator. John approached Grace with a burdened heart, seeking forgiveness. After John served a prison sentence, he and Grace began working together in a May Truth Prevail village, created for survivors and perpetrators to reconcile their relationship while living as neighbors. They expressed the difficult process of continual healing in the hopes of building a greater trust. Such a process entails great sorrow and bravery while instilling a reconciled hope for peace. Stories like John and Grace’s are coming out throughout Rwanda during this commemorative month of April.  They represent opportunities and challenges for reconciliation amidst rather complicated situations related to the genocide.

Throughout this month of April, global citizens reflect upon the twenty years since the Rwandan genocide, highlighting the resilience of Rwandans like Grace and John who continue to confront internal and external aspects of trauma, preventing further conflicts in their day-to-day lives. In essence, Grace and John’s process of reconciliation gives testimony to the restoration of humanity through healthy relationships. Such healthy relationships entail healthful conflict resolution, respect, self-reflection, and trust. In this perspective, I have begun to re-conceptualize reconciliation as related to a deeper understanding of peace known as “positive peace”.

Positive peace challenges individuals to recognize any areas of tension in their life in order to self-reflect and confront implicit and/or explicit conflicts in a healthy manner. In seeking positive peace, the well being of an individual and/or community should not be prioritized at the expense of another, highlighting broken relationships as foundational to implicit and explicit conflicts. Positive peace often requires the contemplation of uncomfortable truths and action in order to confront associated brokenness. Confronting the underlying areas of tension within the here and now requires a bravery in seeking to heal broken relationships, often entailing systemic, environmental, psychological, physical, emotional, spiritual, interpersonal, and/or intrapersonal transformations. Positive peace prioritizes a truthful relationship with God and oneself, further allowing for healthy reconciliation with elements that may be beyond oneself.

While the context of Rwanda remains different from Houghton, human brokenness and the pursuit of positive peace have continual relevance to daily life at Houghton College. Reflecting upon the example of John and Grace, I can’t help but be challenged by a deeper conceptualization of peace and reconciliation in the here and now.

*note: individual’s names have been changed for their privacy.

 

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.