Category: Opinions

Categories
Opinions Two Views

Two Views: Convictions and Compromise

Can a Christian hold convictions strongly, yet at the same time be willing to compromise?

First of all, how we answer this question depends on who we’re talking about and what convictions we’re referring to. For instance, if this is a question about policy makers, my answer would be: please compromise. Yet, if we’re thinking of “mere” voters, I’m not so worried about staunchly adhering to a position. Or, if you’re an activist for social change, we might even encourage you to forgo compromise in order to make your point. In addition, we should think about what convictions are up for discussion. Are they convictions central to your outlook on the world, such that giving them up would be a breach in your integrity? In this case, bartering and compromise is inadvisable. However, if the convictions in question are peripheral to your worldview, we’d think you were inappropriately stubborn if you refused to barter and compromise.

abigailNow, caveats aside, I do have a general answer: Christians are not only capable of holding their convictions strongly and simultaneously compromising, but in addition, it is necessary that they do so. For better or for worse (for better, I suspect), we live in a culture that admits of multiple values and beliefs. Given this, a refusal on the part of Christians to compromise and barter is a kind of arrogance; it suggests that Christian perspectives ought to be imposed everywhere and privileged above all others. I find this attitude morally objectionable, but we can also object to this way of thinking on practical grounds.

           Imagine that Christians refused to compromise and barter. The result would be a political standstill involving two polarized groups. On one hand, we’d have a Christian group, insisting, “These are our convictions, we will not budge. Join our side or leave entirely.” And how will the other group respond? One thing is certain: the conglomerate of non-Christians is not going to acquiesce and adopt Christian convictions. In this case, the remaining option is for the groups to split. Each side will form its own state. Does this solve our problem? Well, no. You may have noticed that there isn’t one set of “Christian convictions” universally shared by Christians. In fact, there’s serious disagreement within Christianity, which implies that our Christian state would have to break down into denominational states. This could, of course, keep going. We weren’t compromising before; why start now? Why not reduce to states of individuals?

           I’m assuming that the above thought experiment points out the absurdity of a “never-compromise” position. But aren’t I being unfair? Perhaps compromise is a necessity in a pluralistic world, as I’ve argued above. The real question, then, is whether a general policy of compromise weakens our Christian convictions. Do we trivialize our own convictions when we set them aside in order to compromise?

      At this point I would defer to my earlier remarks about the nature of the conviction in question. In some cases, yes, I think we rightly hesitate over compromise. Nevertheless, in many other cases, I don’t think that compromise weakens my own convictions on a given subject. Moreover, I suspect that the value of compromise is a deeply held conviction for many of us. We’re interested in promoting our own flourishing, and we’re interested in promoting the flourishing of those around us. Compromise is one of the chief ways in which we express our desire for general well-being in the world. Thus, although we temporarily set aside some of our convictions when we compromise, the very act of compromise honors our conviction that it’s a good thing for diverse groups of people to get along.

Categories
Opinions Two Views

Two Views: Convictions and Compromise

Can a Christian hold convictions strongly, yet at the same time be willing to compromise?

Browsing over the lunches of my second grade classmates, I searched for food items that I thought my taste buds would find more satisfying than the bag of pretzels in front of me. Hmm … we had a small pack of Skittles (an option), a bag of baby carrots (too healthy), some Goldfish (those looked good, but their owner was a girl and girls still had cooties), and an array of other snacks, none of which measured up to my pretzels. So, I decided to eat my pretzels. Into my body they went, part of my body they became. Such is the way with convictions.

coryYour convictions define you. They are a part of you. This is always the case. But there is a hierarchy of convictions. What is it that differentiates the Christian from the non-Christian? It is her fundamental convictions, held by grace. The Christian could not and should not compromise or barter on issues challenging fundamental convictions. However, there is a time to compromise and barter on certain issues; history reminds us of the dangers of thinking otherwise.

The word conviction is derived from the Latin noun convictio, or verb convincere, which translates to “with conquer,” implying that holding convictions involves both a conqueror and a conquered. Holding convictions can do violence. But be not fooled: there is also danger for the disciple of Christ who is unwilling to hold convictions uncompromisingly.

In Romans 8:38-39, Paul says that he is convinced that nothing can separate “us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” He is convinced of this, he holds onto it with certainty. The Christian must have distinguishing fundamental convictions, rooted in the certainty of the love of Jesus, on which she is not willing to compromise or barter. There are also issues that the Christian should be willing to compromise and barter on in order that she does not compromise on a more fundamental conviction within the hierarchy.

Economic theory tells us that a free market economy with pure competition maintains allocative efficiency; that is, goods and services go where they are most desirable. In the same way, if we compromise and barter on all issues, we will end up holding whatever convictions we find most advantageous to us. The Christian should be uncomfortable with bartering on issues that conflict with fundamental convictions. To barter on these issues makes one’s convictions meaningless and turns one into a disciple of self. Instead, Jesus calls us to follow him and be his disciples. If we have no discipline in holding fundamental convictions uncompromisingly, then how are we to be disciples of Christ?

Look at the conquest and evangelization of the Americas that marginalized native peoples. Many people would see this as Christians who were unwilling to compromise and barter on issues with the native people. While I think this is true, I would argue that, at the heart of the matter, it was Christians who were willing to compromise on the fundamental convictions in order to use “evangelization” as a means to power and domination. Because it was advantageous, fundamental convictions were abused. This is the danger of a “free market economy of ideology.”

Because convictions make us who we are, we must never compromise on the fundamental convictions that are inseparable from our Christian identity. We have a table at which we are formed. No, it is not the second grade lunch table. At the Eucharist table we partake of the embodiment of our fundamental convictions. May we always hold to these uncompromisingly.

 

Categories
Opinions

Masculinity and Other Myths

Coming out of a chapel led by a female professor last year I was surprised to overhear a male student comment, “I just find her brand of feminism to be so damaging to masculinity.” During the service the word feminism was not used once, and yet the student found the speaker’s worldview contradictory, I can only assume because she was a woman and had expressed egalitarian ideas. It was clear in his manner of speech that he thought the label feminist was somehow derogatory and that masculinity was a quality of unquestionable value and importance.

lydiaI have no intentions of going into the complexities of the term feminist and how it is perceived in Christian circles. Suffice it to say that despite the Wesleyan Church in particular’s progressive traditions and rich history of equal rights and female ordination, the Church as a whole has hit a fundamentalist wall of sorts, and no doubt the mentalities of many of you on campus lie somewhere in the realm of “Well I’m not a feminist, but…” Grapple with those paradoxes in your own time. At the moment, however, I would like to focus on the latter half of the student’s statement.

What is masculinity, what is femininity, and why do they seem to be so important to our student, and to the general Christian culture? Let’s say that by masculinity he meant all things stereotypically male—power, dominance, strength, football, chopping down trees in the forest—and their apparent priority in Christian life. Certainly the Church has worked to affirm traits such as bravery, leadership, and protective instincts. These qualities are vital for a healthy body of Christ, and it goes without saying that where there are leaders, there must be followers. However, it is backward and a mistake to label these qualities as hallmarks of masculinity and to associate them exclusively with males. They are hallmarks of authority, to be sure, but as they can be found in either sex equally, it is illogical to say that the goals of feminism or egalitarianism could in any way be “damaging to masculinity.” There is no such thing.

Language and instruction within the Church often rely heavily on traditional gender roles, but this is unnecessary. It is most noticeable in the way the Church talks about marriage. Marriage apparently will not work if men and women do not properly carry out their respective duties as dominant and submissive. It is true, marriage, and any kind of interpersonal relationship for that matter, will not work if the individuals involved do not find balance and fulfillment.  Their personalities must complement each other. Christians value marriage because it is a mirror of God’s relationship with the Church, but demanding that in every case the male must be the driving force in the relationship, while the female acts as the support bar simply does not make sense. Spouses should support and encourage each other in accordance with their personal needs, not their type casted needs. Human beings are complex and possess unique personalities, and it is ludicrous to assert that they can be so cleanly divided into Type A and Type B based on solely on one difference. If you find yourself in a panic, wondering if an onslaught of gender equality is going to ruin your chances at a happy, healthy marriage, I may have some advice for you: don’t marry someone you are not compatible with.

It is understandable that people seek to find affirmation from others for their actions and behaviors, and for some, this is easily done by embracing the projected differences between men and women. Men who are naturally assertive and genuinely enjoy physical activity find satisfaction in the knowledge that others respect them for it.  The same goes for women who are graceful, soft-spoken, and in their element while tending to the needs of others. These are admirable characteristics, to be sure. What does this mean, though, for the individuals who are not inclined to such pursuits? Are they doomed to be unappreciated simply because they work hard at and excel in areas not typically accorded to their sex? Rather than laud individuals for living up to their stereotypes, should we not be praising them for doing whatever it is they choose to do with integrity, passion, and skill, no matter their sex?

Affirmation should be sought on an interpersonal, day-to-day level, not from society as a whole. Freedom to be who you are is vitally important, especially within the Church, where we each have a distinct and essential role to play. And these roles should not be judged based on whether or not they perpetuate or breakdown stereotypes, because in a perfect world, no one would be able to tell the difference. After all, “There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus!” (Gal. 3:28)

Categories
Opinions

The Powerful Cycle of Passion and Work

Last semester, while sitting in the lobby of the chapel, waiting to pass out Friday papers, the inner doors opened for a moment, and I heard the speaker speak the words made famous by Confucius: “Choose a job you love, and you will never have to work a day in your life.” And my immediate reaction, before I could stop myself, was “no.” No, that’s not right at all. It can’t possibly be that simple, no, why would you say something like that? Is that supposed to assuage the rumpled soul of a soon-to-graduate-student like myself, reassure me that the past four years of my life have not been spent for naught? Is it a guarantee that I will somehow be successful and content in the future if I can just pick the right path, even when stories and statistics tell me otherwise? My questions amounted quickly, my indignation rising. However, recognizing the futility of getting worked up over words that I had heard only indirectly, and out of context, I tried not to let them get to me. Chapel ended soon thereafter, and my afternoon followed in an orderly fashion, according to routine.

Despite my best efforts to forget them, though, those words followed me for the rest of the day, and have been rolling around in the back of my mind since I first heard them months ago. My gut reaction to them is still the same as it was then, a determinedly firm “no,” but after mulling over, I think I can now better articulate why. As I have lived in different places and gotten to know many different people, a consistency has been that I am drawn to those who live life passionately. You know the type. The person who, for one reason or another, is filled with that near-inexplicable…thing. An unquenchable zeal, it would seem, for whatever it is that they love: a language, a theory, a field, an era, a medium, a people group. Of the people like this whom I have had the privilege to know, with their diverse dreams, desires, and domains, the commonality they all share is that they work. Hard. Their expertise or abilities are not the gifts of random chance. The love they have for what they do has been and continues to be the result of time and effort.

Which brings up a concept that came to me of my ruminations: in the lives of people I greatly admire, the love of their field or craft has been honed. They did not stumble, one day, upon an already-formed passion of unique and exquisite construction and go “Ah-ha, now I know what to do for the rest of my life,” get a job in that field, and then let nature take its course. The love each of these individuals brings to their work is attractive to me because it has been acquired and shaped gradually through, yep, work. For me, this creates a picture of the love for your job and the concept of work as being inextricably linked, one influencing the other in a continual, beautiful repetition. The work fuels the love, and vice versa. It is a never-ending cycle, or at least it is in its ideal form.

laurenAs I continued conceptualizing my rebuttal to Confucius’ long-esteemed words, I came across another problem: the use of the word “job”. Clearly, cultural and linguistic context are integral in understanding a statement such as this one, so I will refrain from criticizing Confucius himself, since I admit that I don’t really know what he hoped to communicate when he uttered the original version. The way the word “job” is interpreted in my context, however, still causes me to trip up here. I am a senior, and the closer I have drawn to the end of my time here, the more I have found myself confronted with queries about my next steps, my plans for the future. My answers to these questions, or lack thereof, often sound hollow, even to my own ears. I haven’t been able to select just one potential career, narrow down my options to just one path upon which to embark, choose that one job that I love because, frankly, I love too many things. There’s some overlap, sure, but the diversity of the things I have invested myself in makes it overwhelmingly difficult to pick among them. The way I have heard Confucius interpreted tells me that my uncertainty dooms me to drudgery; until I finally discover what I love, choose that job, and my life eases accordingly, but I disagree. I think the order of events is wrong, and I don’t believe that a ‘job’ should be my all-consuming goal in life. There’s so much else to live for.

So where does that leave me, at the end of my mulling-over these old words? It leaves me with the conviction that my focus in life should be in honing my passions, in developing my varied loves through work (since the latter is simply inevitable), and in seeing where these things take me. I desire to see my life amount to so much more than a job, even one that I love. Maybe not having a plan etched in stone will turn out alright in the end. Maybe it won’t. For now, I’ll keep working.

 

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.