Category: Opinions

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.

Categories
Opinions

The More Things Change

For anyone over forty years of age, events in Ukraine over the past two weeks have evoked an uncomfortable sense of déjà vu.  An assertive, vehemently anti-Western Russia seeking to resurrect its old sphere of influence in Eastern Europe conjures up memories of the Soviet bloc confronting NATO during the Cold War.  The Russian occupation of Crimea raises the most significant threat to global security since the end of the Cold War, and the possibility of a war among great powers is higher now than at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

peterIn such circumstances, small miscalculations can have vast consequences.  Western options are limited.  Neither the US nor NATO is likely to use force to stop Russia’s occupation or even annexation of Crimea.  But the risks of acquiesence are high.  Putin’s claimed right to intervene on behalf of ethnic Russians in other countries–can anyone say Sudeten Germans?–is dangerous and destabilizing.  And it is difficult to predict what Putin, or even the volatile Ukrainian government, might do next.  Were an actual war to break out between Russia and Ukraine, bringing armed Russian troops to the borders of NATO, the US and its allies would almost surely be drawn into the conflict.

Under such circumstances, it becomes important for us to understand why Russia is acting as it is.  Since the Berlin Wall fell, various theories have been advanced to explain the shape of international order in the post-Cold War world.  Several of the most influential accounts, identifying different driving variables at the root of state behavior, potentially explain Russian actions in Ukraine.

Power.  Since the end of World War II, the dominant school of thought in American foreign policy has been realism.  Realists such as Kenneth Waltz or John Mearsheimer argue that states act in pursuit of their own national interest.  That interest is shaped by the anarchical nature of the international system, in which states can ultimately rely only on their own resources for survival.  They are thus driven primarily to seek power, in order to gain security.  This does not mean that states are always aggressive; realists view states as rational actors, which can be deterred from acting in ways that would decrease their power and harm their interests.  But states are always seeking an opening.  This competitive and antagonistic vision of international order fits the Russian move into Ukraine: Vladimir Putin, sensing an opportunity to extend Russian power and the unlikelihood of an effective Western response, saw his opening and seized it.

Culture.  Perhaps the most influential account of international politics over the past fifteen years has been that offered by Samuel Huntington in his book The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order.  Huntington argues that the world is divided into a number of core civilizations–among them Western, Islamic, Sinic, and Orthodox–which he defines as the largest cultural groupings toward which people feel affinity.  After a Cold War era in which conflict was primarily ideological, he argues, conflict in our new era will occur primarily along civilizational lines.  Thus we should not be surprised to see Russia, the dominant country within Orthodox civilization, confronting a Western world that it regards as increasingly encroaching upon it through actions such as EU expansion.  Nor is it surprising that Ukraine–a country divided between an Orthodox eastern half and a Catholic western half–would become a battleground in civilizational conflict.  When Putin claims the right to protect Russian minorities in other countries, he is making a typical civilizational gambit.

Ideology.  It is tempting to think that ideological conflict ended with the Cold War.  But ideological conflict can take different shapes.  Neoconservative analyst Robert Kagan has argued that instead of ideological conflict ending, it has instead re-emerged in an older form that dominated much of Western history during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries: the struggle between freedom and authoritarianism.  The United States has always been a “dangerous nation,” Kagan says, because our example of free, democratic government, with its appeal for oppressed populations, poses by its very existence and success a threat to authoritarian governments everywhere.  European monarchs knew this in 1800, and Vladimir Putin knows it today.  So when he sees Western governments support a democratic movement to overthrow the pro-Russian Yanukovych government in Ukraine, he responds in kind, seeking to undermine the destabilizing spread of freedom and democracy on Russia’s border.

It is a sign of the current situation’s danger that all three of these theories point in the direction of continued likely conflict with Russia.  There is no more pressing, or difficult, task facing the Obama administration at present than sorting out the roles of power, culture, and ideology in the current conflict and devising a response accordingly.

Categories
Opinions Two Views

Two Views: Pope Francis and Capitalism

A fear of all things red prevalent in our Western cultural mindset only continues to expound itself in our cultural practices, even as memories of the Cold War fade from the minds of our youngest generations. Popular entertainment pits our favourite Hollywood heroes and videogame characters against stock Russian supervillains. Historical figures from Marx himself to revolutionary Che Guevara are labelled and discarded by religious, educational, and state institutions. Even the most recent twitter trend #SochiProblems can be traced back to massive generalizations about countries that are politically unlike us in favour of an educated knowledge of their governmental systems and Christ-like interest in the wellbeing of their citizens.

alexThis inherent bias lashes out against anything our ‘red detectors’ might suspect, including (what should be considered) apolitical statements by Pope Francis about the inequalities present in many Western economic systems. In an apostolic exhortation entitled Evangelii Gaudium (“The Joy of the Gospel,” for those of us who don’t speak Latin), Pope Francis outlines in five chapters what he believes the evangelical goals of the Catholic Church ought to be.

While my quick scan with the search bar dragged up the word ‘capitalism’ zero times in Evangelii Gaudium, it is evident that parts of the second chapter of the apostolic exhortation released in November of 2013 point directly at some of the glaring inequalities of free market systems. The Pope denounces “trickle down theories” that leave the poor sidelined, and claims that “a rejection of ethics and a rejection of God” are the primary causes of growing economic inequalities. The “new idolatry of money” finds us scrambling to consume and leaving those who can’t keep up behind us.

Read: Communism? “pure Marxism,” to quote Rush Limbaugh? Pope Francis is clearly not an economic theorist (nor does he claim to be), and the Evangelii Gaudium is not a political statement. It’s boldly Christian.

“I exhort you to generous solidarity and to the return of economics and finance to an ethical approach which favours human beings.” Let’s be honest. We live in a culture of overwhelming affluence and comfort. We also live in a culture in which we find homeless beggars on the street to be commonplace, and we are willing to literally kill each other over good sales (American Black Friday death tolls since 2006 amount to seven deaths and up to ninety injuries). Is it possible that our anti-Communist cultural bias has become an excuse to avoid charitable practices?

Those who denounce Pope Francis as a Communist or as simply too liberal for the Holy See are missing the point. Pope Francis’ statements centre on a Christian theological core: the desire for Catholics (and for all Christians, at that) to express love and concern for our neighbours. There’s nothing political, let alone Communist, about sharing wealth with the needy. This financial practice is one that was endorsed both by Jesus himself  (Matthew 19:16-30) and practiced by the early believers (Acts 4:32-35).

Questions about the influence of liberation theology on the Argentinian pope have been raised, but especially for those of us outside of the realm of Catholicism it is difficult to judge the theological beliefs of another. Fair concerns about Pope Francis’ writings being viewed as sweepingly general (and primarily negative) towards wealthy people have also been voiced. It may well be that not all of us will agree with all of the Pope’s exhortations. Yet, as Christians, I think the message at the heart of Evangelii Gaudium’s second chapter is one that deserves our interest.

 

Categories
Opinions

Intentional, By Any Other Name

Over four long years living and working in one location, it’s easy to develop a list of pet peeves and annoyances specific to Houghton campus. You can refer to your own list of grievances–maybe you don’t like the isolation. Maybe you’re fed up with the weather. Many of the typical complaints, I’m sure, have to do with the side-effects of living in a Christian community. I’ve heard numerous people disparage the over-use of buzzwords and phrases such as “blessed,” “on my heart,” and “accountability.” What I rarely hear discouraged, however, are academic buzzwords. Perhaps it’s due to the fact that many people on campus have been steeped in religious language their whole lives, whereas all the isms of academic language–existentialism, postmodernism, dispensationalism–are a new and exciting experience.

lydiaOne word in particular that never fails to irk me is intentionality. This word seems to be a house favorite at Houghton College. I heard it so often my first year that I couldn’t help but assume that Houghton must be the most prudent place on earth: a magical land in slow-motion where people move with deliberate and measured steps everywhere they go, like studious sloths. Little did I know that the word’s usage would only continue to multiply until this my senior year, when it colors the speech of my fellow classmates like profanity from the mouth of a sailor.

What is it that intentionality means, exactly? Since living with intention is the new purpose-driven life, we ought to have a solid definition. Most often when my peers discuss living with intention, what they mean is that they intend to make informed decisions and see situations from every possible angle. They want to live in a way that they believe does no harm to anyone else. They want to make a difference. They want to put their passions behind their actions.

Those are an awful lot of connotations to demand from one word. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, intentionality is “the power of minds to be about, to represent, or to stand for, things, properties and states of affairs.” Dictionary.com defines intentional as “done with intention or on purpose.” Intention is purpose, purpose is intention. The fact is, the very definition of intentionality is far too vague and redundant to support its frequency in daily Houghton conversations. It’s a superficial word, and its iteration is ever-so-slightly pretentious, attributing more weight to our actions (or lack thereof) than what might actually exist. After all, what is unintentional? Anything we choose to do, by definition, is intentional. While we are in college, “living” with intention ends up being “thinking” with intention. But, when we graduate, will we be able to make the transition to “acting” with intention, and, more importantly, will we graduate with grand ideas only to realize that, in the “real world,” intentionality just might be completely meaningless?

No matter your personal impression and use of the word, the question remains: how are our academic concepts and “intentions” going to translate into life after college? Our culture of late is intensely focused on youth, experience, and personal happiness. I scroll over countless Buzzfeed and Thought Catalog articles covering fantastic places that you simply have to visit, all the best things to do before you die, how to put your own happiness first, how to worry less, why money isn’t important, and why you should avoid committing to a career path, marrying, or settling in any way when you are “too young,” i.e. below thirty-five. This mentality can’t help but to affect the mindsets of twenty-somethings across the board, even at Houghton, and even if only minimally. It’s likely that it springs from the currently dismal job and economic climate–a way to seem in control when one’s life will be inevitably remain aimless either way. Paired with the earnest Houghton student’s vision of impact and intentionality, however, this presents an interesting conundrum. The “real world,” for all the hard knocks and gritty characteristics that we make it out to inhabit, simply will not contain very many momentous and important decisions. We will be working at coffee shops and retail stores. We will be grasping for any opportunities that we can, and embracing any occasions for freedom.

I believe in doing good acts. I believe in helping others, working hard, and sticking to my principles. And I definitely think that the word intentionality is much too limited and ambiguous a word to encapsulate all of that. It is unrealistic, and it cannot survive life after Houghton. Applying the word intentionality too liberally idealizes the concept and distracts us from the honest choices that we will make in our lives. We need to start using the word intentionality with more intentionality.

 

Categories
Opinions

Is Theology Useless?

The website of Solomon’s Porch states: “You will not find statements of what our community believes on this site.  Belief is a dynamic lived reality.”  Instead, they list “dreams,” which include lots of very nice things like beauty, art, justice, mercy, and truth. Even “innovation .. in order to bring glory to God.”  But you will find nothing about monotheism, the trinity, or the gospel.

This feeling has long been common among laypeople—something which perhaps reflects as much on the bad attitudes of their pastors as of the people—but what I find more disturbing is the increasing trend toward this feeling among Christian students who are called to be lovers of learning as well as lovers of things pertaining to the kingdom.  I am stunned every year to discover students about to graduate, having never taken a single upper-level theology or Bible class, announcing to me that they intend to enter into ministry, missions or even Bible translation.  Some of these seem to think it a positive virtue to have never been contaminated by the academic study of theology or Bible before they serve the world in Christ’s name.  Yet to think one is fit to minister on the basis of Sunday-school training, Bible reading and zeal is tantamount to believing one can be an be an emergency-room doctor after having a first-aid class.

Does it really matter, after all?  I believe this anti-theological education sentiment is driven in part by the belief that, in the end, what really counts is simply loving people for God, not communicating doctrines.  As Peter Rollins wrote, “Orthodoxy … is a way of being in the world rather than a means of believing things about the world.”  However, this is a false dichotomy.  One cannot escape theology, for theology simply means what we believe about God and his relationship to the world.  As J. I. Packer used to tell his students: “Everyone has a theology.  The only question is—is it a good theology, or a bad theology?”  One has only to peruse the Emergent Village blog to see lots of both among people who claim to be doing neither.

paigeThis attitude exists not only among “emerging” Christians; it is to be found here in Houghton, and among many younger Christians.  What is perhaps more disturbing, however, is the increasing trend among some to view even evangelism as superfluous next to loving friendships, community development (here or in the two-thirds world), aid work, etc.  “I don’t care if they ever hear ‘the gospel’ from me” I have heard more than one person say.  The intent is that the object of their good works will see the gospel in their deeds.  The answer is: no they won’t.  I can say this having been raised in a bona fide “nonchristian” family, with no Bible, no religious training, no church, and no Christian family or friends.  We don’t infer theology from your good-works mimes.  You have to actually tell us the gospel.  Jesus proclaimed the gospel to his audience too, and ordered his disciples to proclaim the kingdom and to make disciples (Mark 1:14-15; 6:7-13; Matt 28:18-20), although Israel already had known God’s Word for over a millenium.

I realize that this current emphasis on social action and loving neighbor is a reaction to the weaknesses of previous generations.  And as a corrective, it is welcome and a part of God’s will.  But we must be careful lest in correcting the past we also fail to learn from it, and end up creating new errors.

Exactly one hundred years ago another Christian movement was at the height of its popularity, and like many trends today, it de-emphasized traditional theology and emphasized intervening to change the world for justice and mercy.  It was called the Social Gospel.  Its adherents accomplished many worthwhile and noble things for society, including advancing trade union rights, advocating for women’s rights, limiting child labor and prostitution.  But in the end, its adherents had so weakened the gospel half of the social gospel by various compromises, that they were unable to distinguish their cause anymore from nationalism and democracy.  In the U.S., they urged men to kill Germans to advance the kingdom of God.  And after the war, their social progressivism survived in various political organizations, but only at the cost of eliminating even more remnants of traditional Christianity.  The authority of the scriptures, the deity of Christ, the atonement, and the traditions of the church, were all trodden under in the name of progress, and faith in science subtly replaced the old faith.  There was no longer much Christ, or much gospel, to transform or to claim people’s allegiance, and many churches that bought into it declined.  The movement had killed itself spiritually.

My point is not, of course, that social action or loving neighbor is bad.  My point is that theology matters.  And one cannot escape the consequences of one’s theological beliefs.  In the New Testament, Saint Paul expected ordinary believers to think theologically and addressed open letters with profound theological arguments to congregations that were ninety percent illiterate.  Even Jesus took three years to train his so-called “unlearned” disciples before sending them out.  We should take note and be willing to learn if we wish to be Christ’s ambassadors.

Categories
Opinions

Trivializing the Sacrifice

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.

The above passage is taken from St. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, chapter 11, verses 27-29. To give a brief summary of this passage, St. Paul is writing to the Corinthians reprimanding them for things they’re doing wrong, one of which is communion.

andreI have attended a wide range of churches throughout the course of my life. This is not to say that I understand each and every one of their doctrines, but simply to say that I have had decent amount of exposure. I attended a Catholic school for a little over a decade; simultaneously I attended an Assemblies of God church, followed by a nondenominational church. Interspersed in all this was a Baptist church and getting into the Vineyard movement. For a few years I also joined a Mennonite congregation and now I finally—for the time being—settle in the Wesleyan Church. One thing that is constant in all these churches is the practice of communion, also known as Holy Communion, the Lord’s Supper, the Eucharist, the breaking of bread and the divine service, all referring to the eating of the bread and drinking of the wine in remembrance of Christ’s ultimate sacrifice for our salvation.

I have always been fascinated by how different churches conduct communion. Regardless of the church you attend, this practice is pretty much guaranteed to take place within the walls of a Christian institution. And of course as with any Christian practice, it varies from church to church. Some uphold the doctrine of transubstantiation whereby the bread and wine literally transform into the flesh and blood of Christ while others uphold the doctrine of Consubstantiation whereby the blood and body of Christ are present alongside the bread and wine which remain present—think of red hot iron, where fire is joined with iron yet both retain their distinct elements—and lastly (for the purpose of this editorial) we have the memorialists who take on a more simplistic approach and that is that the bread and wine symbolize and remind us of the sacrifice Christ made on our behalf.

Not only do churches hold differing opinions on what exactly happens to the elements during communion, they also differ in how and to whom it is administered. Some churches I have attended reserved communion exclusively for members of their particular denomination, other churches request that only those that have been baptized by immersion partake in the Lord’s supper, and others allow everyone who sets foot in their church to partake, regardless of their affiliation, commitment, age, etc.

I would like to clarify that I by no means see myself as anything other than a layman. I have not studied the original text, nor have I had any training in biblical interpretation other than the basic introductory classes required by Houghton College. So I will not attempt to pick apart these doctrines. What I will say is that regardless of your stance, there is one common denominator amongst all these views: communion is a mystery. Whether you believe that there is a physical transformation occurring, a metaphysical change, or just plain remembering the death and resurrection, there is a component that cannot be explained in human terms and therefore we deem it to be sacred.

What St. Paul is reprimanding the Corinthians for is not a faulty belief regarding the practice of communion. He is getting after them for trivializing the practice.  If I am honest with myself, I have to confess that I have never put much thought into what I was doing when communion was served. For kids it is nothing more than a mid-service snack, and unfortunately for many adults it isn’t much more either.

A few weeks ago during a Sunday morning service communion was served. I had not been feeling particularly well; I was not where I needed to be in my relationship with God and various people in my life. I knew there was a lot of sin in my life that had not been dealt with. As the pastor invited people to come receive the elements I noticed an array of people go up. The passage that I opened with struck me. If I were to get up and take these elements without examining myself I would be eating and drinking a judgment on myself because I would be trivializing what they represent.

Leaving aside the details of the various doctrines, we take communion for the purpose of commemorating the most sacred act, the death and resurrection of Christ. To go through these motions of eating the bread and drinking the wine without fully understanding their meaning is to in essence mock the sacrifice Christ made by trivializing this sacred act.

Categories
Opinions

Investing in an Intentional Future

I started the slow arduous ascent (or is it a descent?) along the road towards graduate school last May. Why did I begin preparing so early? Well, if you ever score below the tenth percentile mark on the math portion of a practice GRE (graduate record exam), then you’ll experience a similar sense of urgent compulsion to spend the summer studying, studying, studying.

benSo, after countless summer hours passed in the demanding company of my “Kaplan prep” practice book, I returned to Houghton to take the horrible GRE and start my applications proper. Round about October I compiled information for specific, potential schools. I honed writing samples and personal statements, and I solicited recommendations from faculty. I paid an arm and several legs for fees that rained like fire from the sky. I ran around campus tying up loose ends—transcripts, resumes, etc. Then, by December, I submitted my completed applications. As some of you surely know, all this stuff is hard work, and the satisfaction of clicking the send button on all those stupid electronic documents is wonderful.

What I’ve so far narrated is the external process of putting my name in the daunting and immense hat that is the current pool of graduate school applicants. Now I want to recall the more internal but no less excruciating process of deciding whether or not it was a good idea to apply in the first place.

I should start by emphasizing that I’m a humanities major who has applied to English programs in hopes of someday teaching in a college setting. So there’s the first and biggest problem. The job market for English positions at post-secondary institutions is abysmal. We’ve all heard the woes of education inflation; there’s no denying that academic degrees mean less now than they ever have before, and as an aspiring English “scholar,” these dire conditions hit especially close to home. The message that most of the world sent me was “don’t go.”

Due to the above-mentioned circumstances, my decision to apply was hard earned at the price of months of fraught consideration. Though, in retrospect, I think the inner turmoil was necessary. It was only after wrestling with all the reasons not to apply that I came to realize that those reasons had nothing to do with my desire to pursue study and employment in the field I love. Liberal arts (and Houghton specifically) played an essential role in this realization. I’ll do my best to explain, but because chapel this semester is focusing on “vocation,” I think I’ll frame the remainder of my explanation in similar language.

Do we come to Houghton to get a job? Are we here to take the first steps up a salary ladder? Are we here for a glorious and future retirement? My hope is that the answer to these questions is a repeating “no.” Though these concerns are important, they are not most important. Though they should be considered in our decisions, they should not dictate our decisions. I know we’ve all heard the tired catchphrases about the strengths of a liberal arts education, but I want to earnestly reiterate the belief that a place like Houghton is more about what you make of yourself than it is about what you can make in a paycheck. Though this truth may not be apparent always (what with the bombarding bad news about the economy, job market, and doom-ridden future), it is crucial to remember the value of years of hard work alongside committed peers and mentors in a deliberate and mindful community.

Now I’m going to step off my soapbox to briefly return to my personal journey. In the face of what felt like cosmic naysaying, key people at Houghton encouraged me to commit to what I care about. This support was essential because it came from caring people who appreciate the satisfaction of investing in liberal arts. They know me, and they also know the rich complexity of enmeshing oneself in a challenging, thoughtful and holistic life.

Even if I don’t get accepted this year (which is looking like a real possibility at this point, especially as I’ve just now received a rejection letter), I’m confident that I will someday leave a graduate school with a terminal degree in English. At that point, I may not immediately find a teaching position. At that point, I may be one of thousands of equally educated peers drifting from one job listing to another. I may be no further along in being sure about my future. But at that point I will not regret my earlier decision to use my gifts, abilities, and resources to commit things that put joy in my life.

It’s probable that I’m over-simplifying by spewing platitudes that you’ve all heard before. It’s also probable that I’m naïve, that what I’m saying doesn’t apply in the least to you. Obviously, it’s also true that a place like Houghton isn’t the only route for you or me to attain a worthwhile future. But is it also possible that Houghton does actually provide what we need to flourish out in “the real world”?