Category: Opinions

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.

Categories
Opinions

Death, Joy, and Christmastime

Christmas (or Hanukkah or Kwanzaa etc., but for my purposes Christmas), is fast approaching. School has a tendency to push the holiday to the background, but very soon we will be suddenly remembering that we must buy gifts for parents and siblings and best friends before slogging home through December slush. And when we arrive, we will be faced with the reality of how we feel about this particular holiday.

Christmas is associated with joy and warm fuzzies, and comes with a wildly heightened atmosphere, more so than any other holiday in our society. It’s an atmosphere fed by people of ymany different backgrounds—Christians place exaggerated emphasis on family, love, and giving of oneself, and in general, everyone focuses on parties, food, festive décor, good cheer, and buying presents—of which consumer culture takes eager advantage.

In the movie Love Actually, a compilation romantic comedy set on the backdrop of the countdown to Christmas, the characters constantly use Christmas as both a reason and an excuse for their various behaviors. A secretary confesses her love to the Prime Minister, “Because, if you can’t say it at Christmas, when can you?” A groom’s best friend confesses his love to the bride, “Just because it’s Christmas, and at Christmas you tell the truth.” A boss urges his employee to confess her love to her co-worker, because “It’s Christmas.” Much is expected at Christmas. Much is connoted—people are meant to experience love and people are meant to travel to their childhood homes to gather around warm hearths and exchange heartfelt gifts with loving family members.

It’s a difficult time to have bad memories.

christmasThe hefty amount of people with disjointed families and/or scarring experiences can easily feel marginalized when the seeming majority is swimming in a dream of sugar plums and packages tied up in string. My parents announced their divorce in the fall of my 7th grade year. Christmas was the last day we were ever together as a family. Fortunately, my experience has not soured my feelings towards the holiday itself as much as it could have, and as much as it certainly has for others with similar or worse experiences.

Two years ago in a chapel service before Christmas break, Dr. Bruxvoort Lipscomb read her essay “On Death in December,” explaining her associations between death and Christmas. She listed three tragic deaths her life that had each occurred in December, and each involved a mother losing a son. Her essay focused on a painting of Madonna and Child by Bellini in which the Christ-child appears dead, and she pointed out that Christmas is, in reality, the celebration of a baby who was born so that he could eventually die. She concluded with confession that when she thinks of the births of her own children, she thinks also of their inevitable death. In that moment, it seemed to me an unnecessarily morbid distortion of what should be a joyful holiday.

A few weeks later, my aunt died.

I’ve since experienced my fair share of grief. My aunt was the second in a series of deaths of four loved ones over the past two years, and marked the first time that I glimpsed, from my stubborn place several rows back at the viewing, a disquietingly real body within a casket. Her death made true for me the words that Bruxvoort Lipscomb had shared: Christmas is indeed a season about “birthing death.”

While this truth may not have always been apparent to me throughout my life, I know now that it was the only reality for my mother. At childhood Christmases she would ever hang a small stocking for my deceased sister above the fireplace alongside the rest of the family’s larger, teeming stockings. She asked that we write notes to Baby Jesus and place them in the stocking, and I never understood the connection between my sister and Jesus, until two years ago. But for her, and for Bruxvoort Lipscomb, and for many others like them, Christmas has always meant something a little different.

It’s common for people with contrasting experiences to feel animosity towards one another. Those who have had mostly pleasant Christmases throughout their lives, as I have, tend to feel that those who appear more cynical are putting a damper on the Christmas spirit. Those who have not been so fortunate tend to feel isolated and misunderstood. Christmas needs to be sacred. Christmas needs to be changed. Christmas is perfect. Christmas is unimportant.

I don’t think Christmas is really either of these things.

Similar to the inflated perception of what a “Christian family” should look like, the concept of Christmas tradition is also far from what the Christian religion would actually call for. We started out with the basic idea for a celebration of Jesus’ birth, and tacked on pagan practices along the way, partly to aid with evangelical efforts, partly just for fun. Like Valentine’s Day, the holiday is now so strongly tied to distorted, Hollywood versions of love that do more harm than good. But Valentine’s Day is a simple holiday, based primarily on legends and trivial customs. Christmas is not such a throwaway holiday. Christmas has roots that are vitally important to Christian beliefs, and it should not be treated in the same way. Both overly positive and overly negative perspectives on Christmas are too simplified to do it justice.

I have found great hope in the Christmas story of Jesus’ birth and promise, but I have also found great hope in Bruxvoort Lipscomb’s version of Christmas, one that takes an honest look at the future of the baby Jesus. Taking both viewpoints together can lend to the holiday the depth and dignity that it deserves. Don’t cheat yourself this Christmas by focusing on only one aspect of your experience. To be sure, Christmas is a time of deep joy, but it is not a holiday to be taken lightly.

 

Categories
Opinions

Words Matter: A Proposal for Change

“And Goddess said, Let us make woman in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So Goddess created woman in her own image, in the image of Goddess created she her; female and male created she them.” –Genesis 1:26-27

goddessThe (somewhat) familiar words that appear above are taken from the digital version of the “Queen Jamie” Bible found through a curious little website called “regender.com.” Though I’m not proposing that we henceforth adopt this translation at Houghton, I include this website as one example of many tools that are used to demonstrate the real and affective power of language. The issue of considerate, respectful usage extends to every aspect of meaningful interaction with others. Words mean things and exclusive, hurtful words, whether used deliberately or not, can communicate damaging messages. Words matter. As far as I’m concerned, the validity of this short statement is not up for debate. I’d add that, whether you’re incensed or intrigued by the passage quoted at the start, you’ve proved my analysis correct.

Acknowledging that words matter, the question becomes, how do we handle language? Issues of “language justice” are wide and varied. One may note that there are certain discriminatory names that we’ve agreed not to call one another. The fact that I need not identify them is proof enough of our more-or-less consensual agreement. I say more-or-less because, of course, battles are still being fought, and though I don’t want to callously ignore sensitive issues, I do want to zero in on the one area of language usage of which I believe Houghton as an institution is negligent, namely, gender-inclusive language.

Despite the way I started this piece, I don’t want to address gender-inclusive language only with respect to the Bible. Certainly, I think the way we talk about gender, theology, and Christianity is important to consider, and if you are interested in this intersection, get ahold of Dr. Lacelle-Peterson’s book, “Liberating Tradition.” Leaving that conversation to experts, I will use the remainder of my space to talk about the more broad presence (or, rather, absence) of gender-inclusive language standards at Houghton.

I recently interviewed several faculty members as part of a project on inclusive language. None of them could point to any college-wide policy that actively addresses gender-inclusivity with respect to college communications, student usage and awareness, or academic writing guidelines. Though several years ago there was a “diversity committee” set up to draft a school-wide policy on the topic, the resulting document was never institutionalized. Though some individuals voluntarily include sections of this proposed policy in their syllabi, there are no stated, compulsory expectations.

I was surprised by my lack of findings. I decided to research official policies at other institutions. Every school that I found in my search was connected with respect to approving, adopting, or maintaining this or that guideline for non-sexist communication, whether in academic writing, in marketing, or in student handbooks (for example, UNC replaced every instance of “freshman” with “first year student”). Lest you think that I’m unjustly pushing “secular standards” of higher education (whatever that means), I’ll go ahead and mention some examples closer to home. Apart from many seminary institutions, Calvin College, George Fox University, Goshen College, Westmont College, and Wheaton College all deliberately and publicly use their website to address the importance of gender inclusive and non-discriminatory language.

In identifying the above schools, I don’t mean to suggest that they have all the kinks figured out. People in higher education everywhere struggle with flawlessly maintaining gender-inclusive language; no one is perfect, and surely mistakes are made in myriad places and contexts. I’m also not insinuating that the Houghton community has done nothing to support gender-inclusive language. Many individuals consistently model consciousness usage, and I’m thankful that, as I mentioned, some professors have addressed gender-inclusive language on their own terms. I bring up other schools because doing so emphasizes the dramatic lack of institutional support at Houghton. Relying on instructor-initiated treatment unnecessarily politicizes what should be a non-issue, and the preeminence of gender-inclusive usage should supersede professorial preference. For deeply moral and political reasons, it’s simply a fact that no serious college has made it to this point in the 21st century without requiring gender-inclusive language.

Call it naiveté, but I’m optimistic that the majority of people at Houghton will agree with me. In the spirit of community dialogue recently championed by Dean Jordan in his “Christians and Same Sex Attraction” lecture, I welcome any disagreement in the form of conversation. However, if my hopes about this community prove true, then the institution need only stand behind its individuals. It’s time we make up our mind, make it policy, and make it public.

Categories
Opinions

The Irrelevancy of Cheerful Intentions

With the close of another Thanksgiving season, I am excited to begin celebrating all things Christmas. I want to sing cheesy Christmas songs, eat lots of Christmas cookies, and wear wonderfully ugly Christmas sweaters, every-single-day. While this may actually be rather child-like, I have also come to appreciate the Christmas season’s emphasis upon giving unto others with the intent of selfless appreciation. Unfortunately, living in a consumer-oriented context, the bargain-hunting aggression of ‘Black Friday’ has come to more readily define ‘Christmas-like’ giving. The influx of consumerism during this season has simultaneously translated into innumerable opportunities for material charity amongst citizens of the Global North. It is initially daunting to challenge consumer-based charity, specifically with its popularity among respectable citizens. However, there persists a need to re-conceptualize consumer-based charities popular during this

occ

holiday season. A needed shift in perspective specifically highlights the lack of depth, cultural relevance, and disregard for recipient perspectives. At the core of its shortcomings, however, consumer-based charity needs greater understanding for the complexity of human-related issues.

At the forefront of consumer-focused charity during the Christmas season is an initiative facilitated by the Samaritan’s Purse named Operation Christmas Child (OCC). Since 1993, OCC has collected shoeboxes from its participants in North America, Australia, and the United Kingdom. Each participant is to fill a shoebox with hygienic items and toys that Western children typically see as essential or enjoyable to play with (i.e. toothpaste, socks, crayons, coloring books, kazoos, etc.). Through OCC, participants are encouraged to label their toy-stuffed shoebox with a sticker indicating a preferred age and sex of the child who will receive the box. According to the Samaritans Purse website, these boxes are intended for children of the Global South who are ‘living in difficult situations’. Through participant’s shoebox donation, OCC mobilizes ‘privileged’ families of the Global North to ‘share the good news of Jesus Christ’ with ‘underprivileged’ children of the Global South. Unfortunately, introducing Jesus Christ through toys and knick-knacks promotes a simplistic view of Christianity in association with Western consumer culture. As a result, the nature of Jesus Christ adopts attributes of our capitalist society rather than the magnitude of his humanity, divinity, and relevance.

In addition to its non-contextualized approach to evangelism, OCC promotes a one-way relationship between the ‘giver’ and the ‘receiver’, lacking parameters for reciprocity or consistency from year-to-year. In narrowing its concept of charity to a linear flow of western materials, OCC has missed potential for deeper impact through long-term relationship building. Further opportunities involve the development of healthy relationships among consistently participating communities, while better engaging the voice of OCC recipients to define such relationships. Never accessing the capabilities of mutual relationships undermines the diverse expression of opinion amongst both donors and recipients, further hindering the determination of relevant outcomes. Just as one would wish to give a gift relevant to a family member’s indicated ‘wish list’, the voiced desires of OCC recipients need be better involved in determining the outcomes of donor strategies.

Operation Christmas Child currently represents a Westernized view of Christmas, evangelism, and the Global South. As members of the Houghton student body, it is critical that we better critique the premise of OCC and its campus-wide participation. From this perspective, we each are challenged to re-conceptualize the intents, means, and effects of how we choose to give. Moving forward into this holiday season, let us contemplate the wonderful attributes of Christmas, while also reflecting upon its increasing focus on consumerism. In doing so, may we continually contemplate our well-meaning intentions with the valuable humanity of our neighbor, both local and abroad.

 

Categories
Opinions

Students and the Recognition of the Sabbath

Every Sabbath, I ask myself this: to do homework or not to do homework – that is the question. Whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to conquer the papers and projects of outrageous overload, or to relax with my weekly Sabbath away from the tsunami of stress.

saffabthEven here at a Christian college, I notice that many students spend their Sabbaths cramped up in their room, studying for that big exam they have the next day or starting that eight page paper that they have been avoiding like the plague. Where is their Sabbath day of rest in this? What has happened to the day that God has set aside as holy? Exodus 31 tells us, “You must keep the Sabbath day, for it is a holy day for you,” and what joy we feel when we observe the Sabbath!
The Sabbath was made to meet the needs of people, and not people to meet the requirements of the Sabbath (Mark 2:27). We are human, and because of that, we have limitations. We cannot run continuously without ever getting exhausted; heck, I can barely run a mile without breathing like Darth Vader and getting side stickers. For us humans, rest is a necessity. In 2011, full-time college students studied an average of 15 hours a week, 30% got less than 6 hours a sleep a night, and 25% worked 20 hours or more a week (National Survey). These statistics alone show that college students overwork, under-sleep, and over-commit themselves.
But because God cares for us and loves us, He gives us a model to follow. That model is himself. On the third page of my Bible, I read, “On the seventh day God had finished his work of creation, so he rested from all his work. And God blessed the seventh day and declared it holy, because it was the day when he rested from all his work of creation” (Genesis 2:2-3). Now, I can’t imagine that God was exhausted and that He actually needed an entire day to rest. But God set an example so that His children could emulate Him. So why don’t we? Why do we fill the Sabbath with work, homework, and constant business?
This is something that we as Christians should change. We should weekly take the Sabbath. So what is one to do on the Sabbath? Are they just supposed to lie in bed all day sleeping? Well, there is a difference between being lazy and resting. I believe Barbara Brown Taylor, a priest, professor, and theologian, says it best in her book, An Altar in the World, when she describes the Sabbath as “a day of saying no. A day of spiritual growth. A day of not doing, but being.” I don’t think the question is so much, “If I do this, does that count as working on the Sabbath?” as much as “How can I rest today and enjoy this day that God has blessed me with and has made holy?”
That being said, I’m not going to be like the Pharisees, defining what can and cannot be done on the Sabbath, but know that the Sabbath looks different for each person. Sleep in. Go to Church. Spend time with God: through prayer, worship, his word. Journal. Spend time relaxing, giving your mind a break from all of the studying and paper writing. Fellowship with friends, enjoying their company. Go on a hike. Read a book. Take a nap. The options are endless.
But there is one thing that is important, and that is to “Be still and know that God is God” (Psalm 46:10).
And I admit, it is hard to obey the Sabbath. This past Sunday, I battled with whether to do homework or not. With two papers and readings that were due on Monday alone, taking an entire day off from homework sounded unreasonable. But I tell you what, I kept the Sabbath. I spent time with God, I worshipped, I watched a movie, read a book, hung out with friends, and ended the night celebrating a friend’s birthday. And throughout it all, I had peace. When Monday morning rolled around, God gave me the strength to rise out of bed, and blessed me with an abundant amount of time to work on homework. And I am still at peace, thankful once again, that I obeyed my Father, rested, and took the Sabbath.
I believe Christian author Mark Buchanan sums up the Sabbath the best, saying, “Sabbath imparts the rest of God – physical, mental, spiritual rest, but also the rest of God – the things of God’s nature and presence we miss in our busyness.”
For these very reasons, every Sunday I say to myself: To observe Sabbath or to observe Sabbath. There is no question.

Categories
Opinions Two Views

Two Views: Would Widespread Economic and Political Freedom Create Global Peace?

Among a certain subset of people in the world, there is a strong belief that the primary requirement for “world peace”—that nebulous phrase used by politicians, college freshmen, and contestants on the Miss America pageant alike—is freedom. Primarily what they are talking about in these instances is political and economic freedom guaranteed by individual countries. I am not one of those people, and this is why.

2view-sarahsIt is important to note that a given group of people with political freedom depends largely on the values that they hold. For example, in 2005 Hezbollah was elected to power in southern Lebanon. Considered a terrorist organization by the United States government, this is hardly the type of political party to promote peace in the Middle East. The political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the so-called “Freedom and Justice Party”, was also elected by a large majority to power in 2012. (Subsequently, President Morsi was, along with other members of the Muslim Brotherhood, removed from power and charged with murder). While both of these parties were elected through fair elections within the last ten years, neither of them hold values which would increase global peace.

The other freedom suggested as a requirement for world peace is economic freedom. This is more promising. Probably the best example of an international free trade arrangement is the EU (European Union). No country in the EU has gone to war with another EU member country—this is quite impressive, especially considering the previous history of the continent. This phenomenon extends beyond the European Union to democratic countries in general. Researchers theorize that the reason for this is that in a country with an open economic market, it becomes unnecessary and unprofitable for countries to go to war as resources are easily distributed between countries. War is no longer a necessity to re-distribute scarce resources but a distraction from more profitable methods of production.

On the other hand, it is possible that the more or less widespread global peace we in the democratic nations of the world have been experiencing is a fluke in the annals of history. (More or less, because a majority of countries in the world are currently or have recently been involved in some type of armed conflict). The reasons that global peace might not be sustainable even with widespread global economic and political freedom come down to the age-old reasons for conflict which currently democratic and economically free governments have at the moment been able to avoid—land and the resources associated with land.

Although the world as a whole is potentially able to support a significantly larger population than it currently is doing, the essential problem is that the largest percentage of increase in population will occur in regions that are less able to support a large population, while a decline is projected to occur in regions more able to support a larger population. For example, the latest UN projections predict the population of Africa will double, while that of Europe will decline by 14%.

Historically, a frequent source of conflict is a large population of young people with less access to resources. The inequality of consumption globally is well established—statistics such as, the 12% of the world’s population which lives in the United States and Europe accounts for 60% of global private consumption, while the third of global population which lives in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa accounts for only 3.2%.

Not only is inequality widespread and the global population rapidly increasing, there is evidence that water will in the quite near future become a resource lacking in many areas of world. Less than one percent of the water on the planet is usable for humans and animals. According to the UN, by 2030 nearly half of the world will be living under areas of high water stress.

My purpose in stating all these statistics is not to scare anyone or to present an overly pessimistic view of the world. And I do believe that economic and political freedoms are beneficial and even necessary for a country to live happily and well. But they are not enough. Freedom is what you make of it, and conflict is not something that can always be prevented.

Categories
Opinions Two Views

Two Views: Would Widespread Economic and Political Freedom Create Global Peace?

Though I would agree with Sarah Slater’s point that global peace could never be entirely accomplished due to the presence of scarce resources and competing cultural values, it is hard to negate the evidence that democracies – systems in which political freedom is the foundation – rarely go to war against each other. It is also hard to ignore that economies that practice economic freedom and are increasingly dependent on each other also find it difficult to go to war. For these reasons, it seems fair to conclude that the expansion of political and economic freedoms contributes to domestic and global peace, even if they may not resolve the entire issue.

2view-sarahhThese arguments ultimately rest on cost-benefit analysis. As Immanuel Kant, one of the early writers on global peace, wrote in 1795, wars do not frequently benefit the ordinary people in a country. Often, citizens have to bear the load of war, “having to fight, having to pay the costs of war from their own resources, having painfully to repair the devastation war leaves behind, and, to fill up the measure of evils, load themselves with a heavy national debt that would embitter peace itself and that can never be liquidated on account of constant wars in the future.” In a republic or a democracy where citizens are free to exercise political control, it would make sense that they try to refrain from going to war as much as possible. Political freedoms, then, become safety valves that citizens may exercise against their politicians when conflicts begin to get overheated.

Theoretically, Kant’s proposition makes sense, but how does it play out in recent history?

Political freedom – by which we mean the ability of the public to engage in a political process without being coerced or compelled in any way – is a relatively recent phenomenon in history and the phenomenon only took hold in the past 50 or 60 years. According to scholar Michael Mandelbaum, “In the second half of the twentieth century … democracies consistently preferred butter to guns” due to their political choices which reflected their preferences for social welfare programs than to foreign activity and wars. Even the United States, which has acquired the reputation of bellicosity “was subject to the same popular reservations about and objections to war” in the twentieth century that was present in other countries, albeit at a smaller scale.

Increased globalization and the dependency between economies that practice economic freedom also create situations in which the desire for peace outweighs the desire for conflict. Conflict can interrupt trade between nations, the production of goods, and the transactions between consumers and producers which encourages these economies to refrain from war. Again, this argument rests on a cost-benefit analysis between the costs of war and the benefits of peace. As Sarah Slater noted in the previous article, no European state in the European Union has attacked another – a miracle if we examine Europe’s recent history.

We should look at expanding political and economic freedom as a positive force in expanding the capacity of people to behave nonviolently, but we shouldn’t assume that it is a guarantee that people will take the opportunity of these freedoms. As Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen wrote concerning democracy in Development as Freedom, “Democracy does not serve as an automatic remedy of ailments as quinine works to remedy malaria. The opportunity it opens has to be positively grabbed in order to achieve the desired effect. This is … a basic feature of freedoms in general – much depends on how freedoms are actually exercised.” While political and economic freedom may indeed contribute to global peace, it still depends on what people make of it.

In conclusion, I do not believe that there is a one-size-fits-all solution to the issue of global peace and that if only we could snap our fingers and declare that all countries were politically and economically free, then the world would be immediately at one. This approach ignores cultural and historical conditions and, as we have seen in the Balkans, the transition from an authoritarian government to a system that promotes political and economic freedom can be a violent one. (The current state of affairs in many Middle Eastern countries today would be other examples.) By the same token, however, the evidence exists that, in the long run, these expansions may indeed increase global peace and contribute to the capacity of people to behave nonviolently.