Category: Opinions

Categories
Opinions

Relationships and the All-Sufficiency of Christ

Lydia Wilson’s article on Christian perspectives towards marriage in the January 24th edition of the Star both encouraged and intrigued me. Her work has often prompted me to consider my faith from a new perspective, and I found myself, after reading her introductory paragraph, wondering, if marriage is not the “end all and be all” of life (which, sadly, many Christians idolize it to be) what is, and how should we approach singleness, dating, and marriage in light of that?

I believe Miss Wilson touches on the answer when she writes:

luke“Marriage is not intended to be in the forefront of every single person’s mind. Rather, it should be seen as an unnecessary and very serious step, one that only need be taken if one finds a true partner, someone that they cannot possibly live without, and most importantly, someone who will not distract them from doing the work of the Lord, but instead be compatible and work with them.”

Though marriage is not for everyone, the reality is that the relationships we participate in drastically shape our lives, whether that be our family, peers, or significant other. In the gospel of Matthew Jesus quotes the Old Testament and simultaneously places immense importance on relationships when he declares that the greatest commandment is to “love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself.” Essentially, we exist to respond to the awesome love of God expressed through Christ with all of our lives, and, as a result, truly love others regardless of the nature of our relationship with them. As pastor David Platt states, “Proclaiming the love of Christ is the overflow from sharing in the life of Christ.” Two central concepts correlating to this perspective, integral to living out the love of God in relationships, are holiness and worship.

In both marriage and celibacy we are invited to be profoundly shaped through the responsibilities that come with either relationship status. As a single person, I am called to fast from intimacy. At times, this responsibility can be very taxing in light of external cultural pressures, as well as the personal desire to love and be loved. Through exercising the discipline of self control, however, I am gradually learning what it is to place my confidence and hope in Christ over that which I, at times, most long for. Moreover, in striving to wholeheartedly embrace the opportunity to be as effective as possible during this time of singleness, I discover what it means to worship God in light of the season of life that I find myself in.

In the same way, those who participate in the intimacy of marriage at times endure moments of strain, during which they have to set aside their own longings and selflessly serve their spouse despite the very real desire to ignore all commitments. Nevertheless, in choosing to put their spouse first, those who are married discover what it means to give and receive the selfless, unconditional love of Christ. Thus, as they grow as individuals and their marriage evolves they are continuously discovering God more fully as they live out the love of Christ.

Both singleness and marriage involve life responsibilities in which we, in responding well, can be molded in the likeness of Christ and live in worship to him. How does this apply, however, to those who are caught in between; those individuals whom we classify as “dating”, “courting”, “talking”, “pursing marriage”, or some variation thereof? Recently a close married friend of mine shared the following advice with me regarding the core pillars on which healthy relationships, and ultimately marriages, are built. Firstly, healthy relationships involve a deep soul relationship, a closeness represented by a fun, vibrant friendship which provides a solid foundation for pursuing romance. Secondly, they demonstrate a sincere and devoted love for God which powerfully shapes their lives as individuals and a couple. Lastly, and only in the context of marriage, both individuals enjoy and invest in the beauty of physical intimacy. For those pursuing a healthy romantic relationship, their focus should firstly center on the calibre of their friendship. As they grow to more deeply love and understand one another, their relationship should be a source of mutual spiritual edification; indeed they should not only grow individually, but witness Christ equipping them together to be potently effective for his kingdom. Lastly, under the covenant of marriage, they are able to discover and celebrate their love within the context of physical intimacy.

The beauty of relationships, whether they involve family, friends, or lovers, is that they are not the be all and end all, nor are they simply the means to an end. Rather, they exist as a beautiful testimony to the ongoing work of Christ in our lives. As J.C. Ryle states, “relationships can be a great blessing, or a great curse, depending on where we place the Cross.” May we, as we continuously embrace the process of being made holy through growing in the likeness of Christ and worshiping Him in all things, discover the all-sufficiency of Christ within us in every relationship that we are a part of.

 

Categories
Opinions

Pass the Tofu Please

I’m a vegetarian and I love to eat. (Seriously, just watch me chow down some of my Cuban mother’s bean stews with giant helpingsfull of rice.) But, recently, being able to eat healthily at school has become a problem.

At the beginning of this semester, the cafeteria closed the much beloved vegetarian and tofu oasis adorably named “The Wild Mushroom” in favor for introducing an allergen-free bar called “Simple Servings.” While the introduction of an allergen-free station is definitely a welcome addition, the closures of both the vegetarian and stir fry bars drastically limit the entree choices of vegetarians and vegans, not to mention meat-eaters that might prefer a vegetarian option.

SarahFor the curious, a vegetarian plate is much like a meat-eater’s; a nutritional balance separated into protein, plants, and grains (but sans meat in the vegetarian’s case.) A good vegetarian entree (read: “main dish”) possesses the qualities of being healthy, hot, flavorful, and generally includes a protein source like beans or soy. Regretfully, we have seen too few entrees of that nature in the cafeteria this semester and the vegetarian population on campus, not just myself, have become concerned.

For example, if you’ve been following the cafeteria comment board, comments by fellow vegetarians calling for viable vegetarian entrees have been prolific since the new changes. Unfortunately, the official responses to these requests seem to be misunderstanding the problem. In response to a request asking for more vegetarian entrees, the cafeteria respondent to the comment proceeded to list “options” (not “entrees”) which included, of all things, a listing for bagels. (Yes, bagels are good for breakfast, but they are not what vegetarians can eat everyday for dinner or lunch.) The other “options” listed in the response included vegetable side dishes to the main line meals (which, as we all know, are often unseasoned), cold salads, soups (which I have learned not to trust since accidentally ingesting some made with meat-based broth), and the very rare entree.

Some fellow vegetarians and I (plus some meat-eating friends) have gotten creative in response to these developments. We now combine our resources, spend money on extra groceries, and cook a huge vegetarian meal together every Friday evening. I’ve loved every minute of that fellowship and it feels good to have a belly full of delicious food. However, is it right that I’m spending money that I don’t have on extra food when I’m already paying for a pre-paid meal plan?

On that note, it could be said that perhaps the cafeteria is merely responding to the larger financial crisis impacting our campus, prompted by the drop in enrollment. A smaller student body means a more limited ability to purchase a variety of food, thus prompting the cafeteria to limit some options. However, the point stands that while meat-eaters can enjoy both vegetarian and meat options, vegetarians cannot eat the meat options. What are we supposed to do?

The campus cafeteria gets many things right; the addition of the allergen-free bar is one of them. However, the closure of the vegetarian and stir fry bars is a definite wrong. Not only does it fail take into account the diversity of student eating patterns and convictions, but it is a health concern for those that eat here as well. The good news is that it appears as if the situation has been turning around in the past week; I’ve had more options available at the various stations. I’m hoping that these options are here to stay.

Now, pass the baked ginger tofu and the kale quiche, please.

Categories
Opinions

Awkward Couples Aren’t Your Problem

There are times I sit alone and wonder, like, “Why God… Why would you, like, put these people in my life? By people, I quite obviously mean awkward couples! Seriously though, it’s like, OMG the most annoying thing in, like, the entire world totally.  I see them when I eat lunch, when I get my mail from the basement of the CC, when I walk from one small campus building to another, and even when I am in the only coffee shop in Houghton. Like really though? Why are they so much everywhere? Couldn’t they, like not be in relationships or something? Isn’t there like, lots more attractive people who could kiss in public places and cuddle on couches? I would be totes okay with it if they weren’t just so weird looking. Hot people cuddling in Gillette? I don’t think anyone would like, complain about that, like ever.”

 Note: The views above do not reflect the views of the author and are entirely fictional.

wynnI recently stumbled across the Twitter account: @HCawkcouples or HC awkward couples.  To say that I was a little disturbed would be an understatement – disgusted would perhaps be a fitting alternative? As I scrolled down the page, my anger continued to spike as stalker-pictures of said “couples” rolled up the screen of my Mac. Along with the pictures were obnoxious comments pertaining to awkward couple tips and snarky comments designed only to make one’s self feel better at the expense of others. (By others here I actually mean the people whose pictures were taken and posted to social media without their knowledge.)

After my initial disgust wore off, I became sad for my fellow students – that we live day-to-day waiting for Houghton stereotypes to be fulfilled.  However, I was more disappointed that we – a body of students who claim to be followers of Christ – resort to such petty activities. Please understand, I am not a Bible-thumping, fire-brandishing troglodyte come to call God’s vengeance upon you. I am simply another student, another Christian, offering my feelings up (for what will most likely be public rebuke).

Now, let’s be honest, we – including me – have all made sarcastic comments about awkward couples or passing remarks regarding the people whose daily patterns seem to never differ. This established, my response to this Twitter page is this – SO WHAT? Why do you care enough about who dates who that you put the effort into maintaining a Twitter feed about the topic? It is, to put it plainly, entirely un-Christ-like. What part of “loving others” can be translated into “Tweet about those who are different than you?”

When we all leave Houghton and go out into the real world (and yes that is a thing), we are going to be confronted routinely by people who are different than we are.  More often than not there will be people who view us the same way. How would you feel if it were you? How would you feel knowing that entire conversations are taking place online about the habits of you and your significant other? Just get over yourselves people.  There are times when the Grandma Rule needs to be applied: If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all. In the words of Mean Girls: “Calling somebody else fat won’t make you any skinnier. Calling someone stupid doesn’t make you any smarter… All you can do in life is try to solve the problem in front of you.” Seriously, people, if this type of moral can be presented in such a vapid movie, then can’t we figure it out too?

Categories
Opinions Two Views

Is Marriage the Greatest Tool for Lifting Families out of Poverty?

Would marriage help solve America’s poverty problems? Senator Marco Rubio seems to think so. Since the War on Poverty was declared 50 years ago there have been many theories and ideas about how to solve the problem of poverty. But Senator Marco Rubio has introduced a new theory. In a recent speech that addressed wealth inequality, Senator Rubio asserted that the “greatest tool to lift children and families out of poverty” is “marriage.” Senator Rubio keenly pointed out that marriage has become more and more unpopular over the past 50 years, but he believes that it is the greatest solution to the poverty problems that young people face.

So is marriage the ultimate tool that will fix America’s poverty problems?

jedNow before we begin to critique Senator Rubio’s bold statement, it is important to point out that in the Senator’s speech he cites some interesting data concerning the links between marriage and a college education. Indeed, the Senator showed that 64% of adults who have a college degree are married in contrast to only 47% of adults who only have a high school diploma.

Rubio’s theory goes like this: an individual’s economic future is dependent not only upon having money and a good income but is also heavily dependent upon social capital. Marriage and a strong family structure create an environment that manifests social capital. When an individual is raised in a family that invests in him/her socially then the person will be better equipped to handle the challenges in the future. Increases in marriage will cause increases in social capital, which will then increase an individual’s opportunities for economic success.

No one could refute the merits of this argument. But how does this help the millions of children and adults who were not raised in a home with married parents?

Getting married would not make an unemployed person become employed. Getting married would not miraculously increase a person’s low wages. Marriage would certainly have an impact on wealth inequality for future generations but it would not solve the poverty problem for people right now.

Another approach must be taken for those that are already entrapped by their poverty.

Right now, over 47 million Americans do not have health insurance, almost 50 million Americans are receiving food stamps and over 5 million Americans are currently receiving unemployment benefits. To make matters worse, it is estimated that over 15 percent of Americans are either unemployed, underemployed, or have completely given up on finding a job and have stopped looking for employment.

Lifting America out poverty will depend on whether lawmakers can find a way to increase employment, wealth, and wages. President Obama addressed this in his State of the Union speech. Ideas like raising the minimum wage to $10.10, extending unemployment benefits for an additional 14 weeks, and lowering fees and costs for businesses that hire minority workers would have an immediate impact on the lives of poor people right now.

There are key factors that will contribute to solving these problems that have nothing to do with being married. Having a job, having a job that is full time, having a job that pays a sustainable wage, and having a substantial income that provides for a person’s needs are all positive growth factors that contribute to a person’s ability to provide for himself. The common link between all of those factors is income. Having the ability to purchase, having the ability to make your own destiny, and having money at your disposal are all keys to freeing a person from the prison of poverty.

Categories
Opinions Two Views

Is Marriage the Greatest Tool for Lifting Families out of Poverty?

“Marriage” is a hard topic to broach in public debate, particularly in the context of economics. Many women, like myself, view it with a certain amount of trepidation when the subject comes up; the floodgates seem to be open to derogatory comments about “welfare queens” and single-motherhood, with poor women bearing the brunt of poorly-disguised scorn and highly insensitive gaffes. The conversation and ensuing media rigamorale can be so off-putting.

sarahHowever, it’s not a conversation that we should tune out. Some have suggested that the collapse of the married, two-parent family – the result of decades of rising divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, and rising numbers of couples who do not marry – has resulted in much of the poverty we see today.

Indeed, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) recently made bold a speech on the fifty year anniversary of the War on Poverty in which he said “The truth is, the greatest tool to lift children and families from poverty is one that decreases the probability of child poverty by 82%. But it isn’t a government spending program. It’s called marriage.”

I would agree with Rubio, though with a few objections. To begin with, I don’t think marriage is a panacea to the current economic climate. (Granted, it’s not clear that in context of his speech that Rubio was assuming that it was.) I’m not even sure that it’s “the greatest” tool to combat poverty, either. That lends itself too much to a messianic definition of marriage, which I don’t think is appropriate. (It also seems to cheapen other equally important strategies to combat poverty.)

However, whether we like it or not, marriage and other social relationships do affect us and how rich and how poor we are. As Nick Schultz of the American Enterprise Institute points out in “Home Economics: the Consequences of a Changing Family Structure,” economics is not solely a study of numbers and monetary transactions. The most important economic questions of our time – rising income inequality, depressed wages, and slow economic growth – cannot be answered without touching upon our social institutions. If this is the case, marriage must be addressed.

Marriage delivers on a number of good things that can help relieve poverty. For one, it seems to  promote economic  mobilization. Our modern version of marriage has all the promise to provide a stable home for children, helping them succeed later in life. Though they acknowledge that the effects of marriage are not the only factor, a new Brookings Institution study makes the claim that “children born into continuously married family  [sic] have much better economic mobility than those in single parent families.” So, marriage seems to be good for the kids.

It’s also good for the adults. In the absence of marriage, single parents, particularly single moms, have to struggle working one or more job, along with the regular housework and childrearing.  According to a study undertaken by the Atlantic, poor women and single moms are more likely to have higher levels of anxiety, to live with regret, to stress about their kids, and rely on their family and friends for money. Marriage can relieve some of the pressure by turning one income into two.

Altogether, marriage creates a miniature economy that has the potential to benefit all parties and, in the best marriages, this is fueled by a love and warmth that cannot be reproduced elsewhere.

That being said, the solution to poverty in the United States can’t just be “get married,” nor should we expect that to be the solution for every individual. However, marriage is nonetheless an important aspect to resolving poverty and one of our greatest tools. Given its benefits, why don’t we encourage it enough? Let’s stop tuning out the conversation based on political rhetoric and start looking at marriage as the great thing that it is.

Categories
Opinions

Only If You Absolutely Must

In the world of Christian thought on marriage, two main viewpoints seem to be perpetuated: the first, that marriage is the end-all be-all of Christian life and is a perfect holy union sanctified by God. Many of my friends and people I have encountered at Houghton hold this opinion. They did not come to Houghton for the sole purpose of finding a spouse, but they do fervently believe that marriage and procreation is the best possible way to live out God’s purpose in their lives, and that not fulfilling this duty somehow falls ever-so-slightly short of Christian perfection. The second viewpoint runs along the lines of, “Really, folks, it is okay to be single.” Not better, not even great, just “okay.” As in, don’t worry if you have completely failed at finding “the one” God has for you, He can still use you even if you are lonely and alone. I mean, hey, Paul was single!

Yes, Paul was single, and he had an awful lot to say on the subject as well. In 1 Corinthians 7:38, he writes, “So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does better.” Keyword here: better. In Paul’s mind, avoiding marriage is the ultimate goal, and only by staying single can God’s plans best play themselves out in your life. Jesus seemed to share the same opinion. When the disciples asked him if it was indeed better not to marry, He replied in Matthew 19:12, “The one who can accept this should accept it.” And, in Luke 20:35, He explains, “But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage.” Marriage is an earthly tradition, a vice. It is not “like the angels.”

So where does this leave those of us who would still view marriage as beautiful and special representation of Christ’s relationship with the Church? Certainly there is scriptural evidence for this way of thought as well. Often the body of believers is described as a bride being received by Christ at the resurrection, and in Song of Solomon the bedchamber is described as being blessed by God and His presence is with the bride and groom. What it means to have a committed marriage that is spiritually healthy and focused on God is also outlined clearly in the Bible. Paul himself describes what a Christian marriage should look like, instructing in 1 Corinthians 7:3-4, “The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.” Likewise Jesus speaks to the permanence of marriage in Matthew 19:6, saying, “Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” There is nothing wrong with marriage, and those who do marry have specific guidelines to follow when it comes to forming their relationship in accordance with God’s will.

However, Paul’s instructions are followed by a stipulation. In 1 Corinthians 7:6-7 & 9, he adds, “I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all of you were as I am. … But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.” In other words, marriage is the lesser of two evils. It is the exception, not the rule. There is no “one” that God has chosen for you to marry, because God does not even really want you to get married. If you absolutely cannot help yourself and you must get married in order to keep from sinning though, it is okay. God will make an allowance for you.

maariageIf I am coming off a bit harsh, do not worry. I do not think, as it may appear in the last couple paragraphs, that marriage is the devil. As Jesus concedes in Luke 20:34, “The people of this age marry and are given marriage.” It is simply a fact of life, and within that fact, I believe that Christian relationships have the power to do good work for the Lord. I myself am engaged to be married. In my life I have been lucky enough to be surrounded by shining examples of strong Christian marriages. However, I do think that we need to seriously reconsider the ways in which we typically treat marriage within the Church.

To begin with, there is no evidence in scripture that marriage should in any way be one of the main goals of a person’s life. Pressure on young people to find the one God has intended for them is common in Christian circles. The result is a fevered rat race of young adults trying to figure out who to marry, taking dating relationships far too seriously, rushing into marriage, and feeling inadequate if unable to find a mate. Divorce rates are high, due in part to an increasingly relaxed stance on commitment and divorce, but also due to many people feeling that they should get married as soon as possible. Marriage is not intended to be in the forefront of every single person’s mind. Rather, it should be seen as an unnecessary and very serious step, one that only need be taken if one finds a true partner, someone that they cannot possibly live without, and, most importantly, someone who will not distract them from doing the work of the Lord, but instead be compatible and work with them.

In addition, God is willing to work with our differences and the personalities with which He has blessed us. From the beginning, He has acknowledged our tendency to loneliness, admitting in Genesis 2:18 that “It is not good for the man to be alone.” He is honest about the strengths and weaknesses of His people. As is stated in Matthew 19:8-9, He allowed Moses to permit the people to divorce, “because your hearts were hard,” even though “it was not this way from the beginning,” and in then Jesus’ time, He once again did not permit divorce “except for sexual immorality.” What does this openness to the conditions of the time indicate about how we should approach the current discussions that the Church is engaged in, such as the rights of homosexual and transgendered people?

There are numerous issues that could stand being revisited when it comes to what the Bible says about marriage, and we are not always going to agree on all of them. But if we are honest about the faults in our worldviews, we can read scripture with an open mind, communicate with one another, and perhaps make some improvements in the way we treat those we have previously marginalized.

 

Categories
Opinions

Walking on Water

This New Year, I didn’t want party blowers or noisemakers or confetti.  I didn’t want countdowns or parties. I wanted real quiet, real rest, real time to intentionally think, reflect, and acknowledge the ending of 2013 and the beginning of 2014. I wanted to dwell in the transition, in the momentary suspension, in the weightless limbo, in the passage from one year to the next. I wanted to neatly gather its pages—its moments, musings, feelings—and lay my hand on top of the stack, the year in its entirety, and sigh a long, contented sigh. Bind it in reflection and in prayer, longing to be engaged in my living, aware of my being, and conscious of its changing and directing—intolerant of a passive blur of a life.

chantingThere I was, chanting choice and carrying a banner for individual agency, convinced of my ability to accept, reject, create or reform my character; my personhood.

Then I started thinking about my year: the humbling, the self-confrontation of weaknesses, the uncertainties. And though anyone who is familiar with me knows that my approach to life is of the smell-the-roses-wind-blown variety, this year challenged me. It challenged my flexibility, my control. It was a year of travel, of transitions. Those have a way of confronting and changing you. My coming and going quietly, gradually, altered me and I am still processing how that is.

A semester in Tanzania expanded the classroom walls, took biology to villages, to reserves; took lecture to living. In Ruaha Game Park, this sense of smallness, of humility, was absolute. Driving through the savannah on the way back to the lodge, Bon Iver’s “Holocene” playing in my ears (“And at once I knew I was not magnificent/…and I could see for miles and miles and miles”), I started to sense the bigness of the landscape and the smallness of me—nature’s power and my weakness. The savannah just seemed even more immense than it had minutes before: miles and miles and miles of dry grass and bush, Acacias and enormous Baobabs, stretched, reached, out my window and beyond, bowing to mountains in the distance—their peaks, so far that their greens gave way to blues, were an outline of the endless scene that spread out before me. And I felt small. I thought, “here, I’m a minority. Here, I stumble over language. Here, my thinking and my values are often not the norm. I look different, act differently, and think differently.” On the game drive earlier that day, perched on top of the truck (which we affectionately, and inexplicably, called The Aardvark), we passed a bull elephant—an angry one. He trumpeted, he tore at leaves and branches, and he stomped his feet. His power was visible and incredible. If he had carried out his charges I, almost eye-to-eye level with him, would have been totally helpless. My lack of control was stark—nature did not, does not, and should not bend at my will. May I come to terms with my smallness, I told myself. May I let it breed humility in me. And may it change my perspective—one shaped by the West, the great believer in power, in independence, in control, in the accumulation of wealth and in the fostering of safety, security, comfort, and luxury: the West who makes nature bend at its will; the West who, in its industriousness, efficiency, and power—forgets its smallness and loses touch with the reality, and beauty, of vulnerability. “Too much power, too little/knowledge,” Wendell Berry writes. And I think he is right…there is some truth, some value, in being a minority—in being okay with smallness.

Humility and a willingness to relinquish control: these, I’m realizing, need to be repeated in my head and practiced in my living. They are especially necessary attitudes to carry into the field of international development I’m moving towards, a field that is constantly contested: a field that is a battleground for cynicism.

Development—this season of life—feels like walking on water.

And so, recognizing the limit of my reason, my critical thinking, my abilities, my knowing, I throw my legs over the boat. I step on to a sea. I’m tiny, and things are about to get risky, messy, and uncomfortable. Trusting that I have a role to play in God’s redemptive plan, unfolding since The Garden, I move towards Jesus, His arms outstretched, His lips moving, saying, “Yes, come.”

Categories
Opinions

Are Students Just Looking to be Entertained?

Earlier this week, CAB decided to cancel its Houghton’s Got Talent (HGT) event due to lack of student participation (for further elaboration, see “Houghton’s Got Talent Cancelled” on the front page of this issue.) A student life representative came to the Star office that evening to discuss the issues surrounding the cancellation. He posed a question: “Are Houghton students looking to be entertained more than they are looking to be involved?” I think that this is a worthy question to explore and my response would be a resounding “yes.”

WebQuoteNow, given this specific example, we could talk about the problems of the HGT event itself and why students may not have been very excited to participate in it. For one, the conceptualization of HGT appeared to be much too like SPOT, especially last fall’s SPOT, but with significantly less hype attached to it. For another, it wasn’t very well advertised – consisting of an email announcing auditions over Christmas break, with a few mentions on social media. (And, if you’re like me, you’re much less likely to keep up to date with emails over break, much less think about school.) Finally, though the event was apparently a hit several years ago, there hasn’t been a standing tradition of holding it every year, making students much less likely to participate since they don’t know what to expect.

These are all important considerations before we could make the catch-all conclusion that students are less inclined to participate campus events and organizations anymore. In fact, as a singular event, we could dismiss the cancellation of HGT as a defining example, given all the problems outlined above. Yet, when we think about it, I think we can see it as part of a larger trend indicating a deadening of student life and participation.

Let’s consider a few more examples. A good example may be the decreasing involvement in student government organizations on campus. This can be seen most notably in the desperate emails pleading students to run for the empty class cabinet positions. It also evident in the SGA elections where there is only one name running on the ballot. Student government organizations appear to be running increasingly on a small group of people, with less input coming from the wider student community. (Be honest, have you ever attended an SGA meeting during your entire college career?)

Even here at the Star, we’ve noticed a drop in participation. Finding writers to take on stories is getting a lot harder than it used to be. This could be due to the drop in enrollment (for example, when I first began working on the paper in my freshman year, enrollment was hovering a little above 1,100, perhaps more; now it is about 900) but I don’t think this explains all of it. Many students that we have emailed seem to be less willing to tackle on important college issues and a little more hesitant at seeing their name in print.

There also seems to be less activism, less response to the changes or events that take place on campus. Always excepting the comment board in the cafeteria, students have been taking weaker stances on college issues and, if they haven’t, they’ve been keeping their opinions to themselves. Here at the Star for example, there have been significantly less letters to the editor and less opinions pieces taking on strong stances about college issues and events. Houghton is in the midst of a great period of change, we have a lot to react to, either in protest or support. For instance, there is the always-problem of low enrollment prompting financial problems, program cancellations, rising tuition, a new athletic complex that is taking on more and more debt – among others. I have yet to see a strong, public student opinion on any of these issues.

Where is the spark? Where are the young upstarts looking to change the world (or, at the very least, their campus)? Again, I think we have become too complacent, looking too much to being entertained. Or maybe it’s not looking to be entertained that’s the problem, but our own apathy.

Let’s fix this. We can revitalize our campus by getting involved – whether it be something like writing a letter to the editor, attending an SGA meeting, drawing up a petition, or even something weird like putting together a juggling act for the school talent show. We can do it.

Categories
Opinions Two Views

Two Views: Is free-market capitalism good and just?

While I agree with Joe Gilligan’s point that free market capitalism has benefitted society through encouraging innovation and thereby increasing the wealth and living standards for societies as a whole, it is not immediately apparent whether these accomplishments classify capitalism as good and just. The statistic that Americans have a higher median income and standard of living than Swedes merely demonstrates that free market capitalism, as compared to socialism, may be a more effective route to materialist ends. In order to take the next step and assert that capitalism is then good, one would need to assume that maximal wealth is the good to be pursued by an economic system. However, this would be to assume what capitalism already asserts: that the ultimate goal is maximization of profit. In order to avoid circular reasoning, the goodness of capitalism cannot be analyzed on the basis of resulting wealth. Fulfillment of materialist objectives, such as the effective production of goods and the increase of societal wealth, is a significant merit for an economic system, but does not provide adequate basis for qualifying capitalism as good and just. The standards of what is good and just for an economic system should be defined in ethical rather than purely economic terms.

The traditional ethical defense of capitalism is on the basis of freedom. According to Amartya Sen in Development as Freedom, while efficiency and the ability to improve living standards are important reasons to maintain free markets, “the more immediate case for the freedom of market transaction lies in the basic importance of that freedom itself.” Though we might dispute how freedom should be defined or realized, most of us probably agree that freedom is intrinsically valuable, and the promotion of freedom is an acceptable basis for asserting that free market capitalism is “good.”

The issue to be explored, then, is to what extent the theoretical good of free market capitalism—freedom—is actually realized in capitalist societies. In this context, the attainment of individual freedom will also be my criteria for measuring whether the system is just.

Perhaps the issue of greatest concern for individual freedom in capitalist societies is immense (and growing) wealth and income disparity. The Gini coefficient, which measures the income inequality within a particular group, has risen enormously within countries with capitalist systems over the past quarter-century. Since China began capitalist market reforms in 1979, its baseline standard of living has increased considerably, but its Gini coefficient has increased from about 28 points (marking relatively equal economic distribution) in 1991 to over 47 points (marking gross inequality) in 2012.

injusticeWhile economic inequality is not necessarily inherently unjust, it may still pose a significant barrier to individual freedom, thereby perpetuating injustice. Individuals with less money have less freedom to act in various areas of life, for instance to access education or healthcare. Individuals with less money also have less power to influence what happens in society. This is particularly true in circumstances where wealth may literally buy political influence, a common occurrence in countries such as China. To the extent that the gross economic inequality associated with capitalism limits freedom, it is unjust.

Defenders of capitalism might respond by suggesting that the underlying structure of capitalism is just, however, because it rewards individual effort and achievement with economic success. But basing economic justice solely on individual effort mistakenly assumes that individuals begin on level playing fields with equal capabilities to succeed. A recent World Bank study showed that 80% of variability in a person’s income is accounted for by country of birth and parental income level. The remaining 20% is primarily affected by sex, race, and other variables over which persons have no control; individual effort has a very small impact on economic success.  Even in capitalist societies where there might be a stronger relationship between effort and success than exists globally, there is no question that factors over which an individual has no control significantly influence his or her life success or lack thereof, economic and otherwise. Although capitalism is structured individualistically, in reality, the “individuals” who take part in capitalism are shaped by communities.

So am I suggesting that free market capitalism is not good and just? Perhaps this is not the most relevant question. When evaluating capitalism, we must consider it in relation to alternate economic systems. Other systems might come closer to the ideal of the good and the just in some regards, but there are always tradeoffs. While free market capitalism cannot be unqualifiedly characterized as good and just, it may still be the best alternative. However, we must be careful to recognize the limitations of capitalism so that we can be open to pursuit of the good and just through whatever measures may be most effective rather than limiting ourselves to a single framework.

Categories
Opinions Two Views

Two Views: Is free-market capitalism good and just?

Each day we participate in the most just and free market system in the world. The iPhone we bought to talk to friends, the Pepsi we drank to keep us awake to study, the paycheck from work, are an integrative part of the free market.  Dinesh D’Souza, former President of The King’s College noted free market “capitalism satisfied the Christian demand for an institution that channels selfish human desire toward the betterment of society.”

enterpriseAuthor Michael Novak documents the origin of free enterprise to the Catholic’s creation of Canon Law, which led to a common market and law system by establishing “jurisdictions of empire, nation, chartered city, guild [for] merchants, and entrepreneurs. It also provided local and regional arbitrators, jurists, negotiators, and judges.  Now gears for windmills, harnesses for beasts of burden, ocean-going ship rudders, eyeglasses, and ironwork” were invented with the free flow of trade and ideas.  Later the “Protestant Work Ethic” would bring ferocity for free markets documented in Max Weber’s 1905 book, The Protestant Ethics and the Spirit of Capitalism.  Book critic Tom Butler-Bowdon states Weber makes a compelling argument that Protestants made free markets worthy and morally just because “of the spirit of progress; the love of hard work for its own sake; the orderliness, punctuality and honesty; and the belief in a higher calling.”

As history tells us, the free enterprise system has been the catalyst for the greatest strides in innovation, social mobility, and the standard of living.  In a free enterprise system, allocation of goods through trade is not an exploitation of buyers by sellers, rather a mutual agreement of value between two consenting parties.  However, many of today’s liberal-progressives argue free enterprise is unethical resulting in a mal-distribution of wealth.  They claim markets cause the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer.  However, history has shown societies prospered from free market expansion which created a better standard of living for all income classes. When President Kennedy cut taxes for the upper class the economy blossomed.  Kennedy remarked, “A rising tide lifts all boats.”   According to economist Arthur Laffer, the US’s “purchasing power of the median income family rose to $54,061 in 2004, an $8,228 real increase since 1980.  The middle class is not disappearing…it is getting richer.”  The poor have also benefited from these booms.  A Treasury study on income mobility in the US from 1996 to 2004 found the bottom 20% of wage earners experienced a 109% (inflation adjusted) increase in income.

Critics of free enterprise often cite Sweden as a model of how socialism can work.  Having a mother from Sweden and having visited many times, I know Sweden is a lovely country, but if Sweden is socialism’s best argument, then the cases against socialism are many.  It is true Sweden has relatively no poverty.  On the other hand, economist Milton Friedman noted, “That is interesting because in America, among Scandinavians, we have no poverty either.”  Likewise less than 7% of Swedes and Swedish Americans live in poverty.  However, the similarities end there considering how wealthy American Swedes are compared to their Swedish counterparts.  A Swede’s average income per year is $36,600 while an American Swede’s average income per year is $56,900 according to author Kevin Williamson.  A typical Swedish family would live in an 800 square foot apartment and own one car, while a typical Swedish-American family would own a 3000 square foot home and own two cars.

In addition, according to Socialism by Williamson, Sweden’s GDP per capita was 20% higher than that of the US in 1980, but in 2001 not only was the US’s GDP per capita higher, it was higher by an overwhelming 56%.  Sweden also has more social rigidity than the US.  Ironically, America is more egalitarian than Sweden.  While income may be more equally distributed in Sweden, the US has distributed wealth more equally.  Income and wealth are correlated in the US by high paying careers or entrepreneurship.  In Sweden you are more likely wealthy because you inherited it.

The free enterprise system has benefited all economic classes and mankind’s leap in innovation, social mobility, and our standard of living.  On the other hand, collectivist societies have stifled innovation, while creating a rigid social mobility, driving down a lower standard of living.  President Ronald Reagan once said, “Socialists ignore the side of man that is the spirit. They can provide you shelter, fill your belly with bacon and beans, treat you when you’re ill, all the things guaranteed to a prisoner or a slave. They don’t understand that we also dream.” Similarly, Timothy 1:7 states, “For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.”  The choice is clear.  We must continue to dream.