Category: Opinions

Categories
Opinions

Restructuring Senate: The Answer for SGA?

“The last thing Senate needs is to worry more about Senate.”

This sentiment was recently expressed to a Star staff member, telling a student’s frustration with the latest amendment effort springing from the Student Government Association.

This amendment, alluded to by the said student, is a push by SGA toward “re-structuring Senate” in hopes of more accurately representing the Houghton student body within SGA itself. It would appear that a side hope of SGA regarding the possible structural overhaul would be an increase in student body interest in their representative body.

Currently, there are three senators per class, and eight senators-at-large. There are no other pre-requisites besides being a member of their class, and/or interest in being a senator. As a result, the general population of the Student Senate may be dominated by students from a certain demographic, such as a political science major.

The proposed changes would transform this Senate into an assembly composed of three senators for each class, a senator from each residence hall or area, one senator from varsity athletics, and a senator representing each academic category (of which categories there are seven). As of yet, SGA has not reached a consensus on how many senators would comprise the final group—the only word so far, is between 6-8. This brings the final potential total of senators between 24-26, since each senator may only represent one category.

That the Senate currently struggles with representing the student body at large is not a question the Star staff debates. Restructuring the student’s representative body in a way that better reflects the student body is a noble, worthy aim. Accurate representation is always something to be appreciated, and one that has obvious merits. Rather, our question has to do with the apparent hopes SGA has cast upon this proposed change: hopes that by increasing the accuracy of their representation, they will increase their relevance to the student body.

During a recent Senate meeting, a question was asked that sums up the heart of what is at stake. The student’s question asked what exactly has brought on the need for this proposed amendment. The answer given by SGA Vice President Ben Hardy was that “there is a massive disconnect between other students and the students in this room about what the Student Government does. Sometimes it’s just a joke, but sometimes it seems serious when people ask what we do besides Donut Day. Hopefully a [forum] will give us a better sampling.”

As noble as a more accurate representation is, increased relevance to the student body does not necessarily follow from this proposed change. The last thing Senate needs to become more relevant to the current student body of Houghton College is to look inside, and change itself. Too much introspection on the part of Senate, and too much inward, SGA-focused work is exactly why Houghton students seem tired of giving attention to SGA, as indicated by comments such as the one given by the student above.

The Student Government would do well to expand outside itself, if it wishes to be known for more than its donuts. It well-enacts this outward focus in notable, appreciated areas such as the regular blood drives, and the various service days and projects it undertakes. Through these efforts of uniting the student body with community members, SGA performs valuable, visible work. It is through these visible, external projects that the Student Government forms a face and identity by which it may be known to students, and known for its impact.

Student Government’s current quest for greater relevance and a more visible face is better pursued by a continuation of their external activities and community projects on a larger scale than by another focus on inward dynamics.

Categories
Opinions

The Kingdom Value of Proclamation

“So you’re here studying Arabic. Are you a Muslim?” I heard this kind of question all the time in the Middle East last semester. Often it led to a spirited discussion about our faiths. Some people recommend avoiding the topic of religion when you meet a Muslim for the first time. I say, “Good luck – it’s impossible.” Even though I grew up in a church that taught personal evangelism, I wasn’t quite ready to take the plunge. I figured that before I could broach the subject of religion with someone, I would have to build a deep relationship with them and show them Christ’s love in tangible ways. However, being pushed to talk about my faith all the time made me reconsider the role of proclamation in missions.

Courtesy of http://thegospelcoalition.org/
Courtesy of http://thegospelcoalition.org/

I think most of us would agree that the Church’s ultimate mandate is to spread the objective truth of the gospel, which we believe will ultimately transform lives in practical ways. But to be honest, when I look at my own life and at the way many people approach missions, I’m not convinced that we really believe this. When I identify far more chapel services and conferences on issues of poverty and justice than on bridge-building and evangelism, I can’t help but wonder if we’ve lost the essence of the Church’s mandate. I wonder if our passion to prove our message through our actions has swung so far that we have lost some of what it means to be Christ’s ambassadors.
You don’t have to look any further than the Old Testament to find out that God’s story of redemption is inseparable from social justice. The people of Israel were to be an attraction to the nations around them as they exemplified God’s attributes by their equitable treatment of the marginalized. But when Christ appears on the scene we find that His life of service was only a framework for His message. When He sent out the seventy-two disciples, He told them, “Heal the sick … and tell them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you’” (Luke 10:9). The primary occupation of Jesus and His disciples was proclamation. Their miracles were always accompanied by words of life. It was Peter’s bold preaching, Paul’s careful apologetics, and Philip’s faithful obedience that allowed the gospel to spread and the Church to grow. So, fundamentally, the real distinction between the way God’s mission was carried out in the Old and New Testament was the absence or presence of proclamation.

We have all seen evangelism done wrong. If you’ve seen the gospel turned into a campaign, a decision-rally, or a popularity boost I can’t blame you for being slow to talk about your faith.  But perhaps we have over-reacted, thereby reducing our mission to neutral, meaningless philanthropy. Some of us seem to be in danger of relegating proclamation to a secondary position, thereby losing the distinction of New Testament mission.

Dr. Benjamin Hegeman, professor of Islamic Studies, has noticed a drift in the mission organization he serves with. As missionaries became more specialized in their work and social action began to take a bigger role, he saw his colleagues spending more and more of their time in compounds doing translation, accounting, fundraising, and medical work, until they had all but forgotten how to proclaim the gospel. He saw committed missionaries doing what the apostles firmly refused to do in Acts 6 – leaving the preaching of the Word to serve tables. Of course, these practical activities are all necessary components of spreading the gospel. But it was as if missionaries were making the work of mission into a dualistic mandate, where their job was purely doing the practical things that they were so good at.

I have the deepest respect for experts in the fields of social action and physical need. We need more of them. Christopher Wright reminds us that mission is, by definition, holistic, and proclamation alone isn’t the whole gospel. But it seems that St. Francis’ idea that we are to “Preach the gospel at all times and when necessary use words” has become a refuge where timid souls can quietly live out Christ’s love, hoping that unbelievers will get the point. For some, it has become a mantra that gives them an excuse for being lax in memorizing scripture, studying other religions, and learning apologetics – a far cry from the boldness St. Francis displayed when he travelled to Egypt to preach to a powerful Muslim sultan during the Crusades. David Hyams was right when he wrote, “The answer lies not in being nicer, but in communicating the substance of Christianity.”

The irony of proclamation is that if it’s artificially manufactured, it’s useless. It must flow out of an authentic relationship with God and with others, which will make it look different in every context. But we must be intentional about it. The gospel will be hindered from making its full impact on communities unless we seriously prepare to engage the world – on the basis of actions – with proclamation.

Categories
Opinions

Military Innovations: Cheapening the Sanctity of Life

Talk surrounding drone strikes has increased significantly, and many valid points have been raised both in objection and in support to the use of these killing machines. Drones are unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) that are armed with weaponry and serve both for reconnaissance and for combat purposes. Arguments surrounding the use of these machines have revolved primarily around the moral and ethical dilemmas that their use entails.

Courtesy of http://dronewarsuk.files.wordpress.com/
Courtesy of http://dronewarsuk.files.wordpress.com/

A major concern deals with the large amounts of civilian casualties caused by drone strikes. According to a study by Stanford Law School and New York University’s School of Law, the level of targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is around 2 percent. For every terrorist killed there are approximately 50 civilians killed. According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism one reason for the 98 percent civilian casualty rate is not a result of lack of training or terrible aim but rather a “double tap” strategy—reminiscent of terrorist organizations—which aims to target people who gather at drone attack sites to mourn the victims.
Arguments in favor of drones emphasize the utility of these machines in sparing American lives. Why risk sending a regiment of young men to risk their lives when you can send in an unmanned drone? From the perspective of the officials this isn’t even a question; there is no reason to ask someone to risk their lives if there is an alternative. But how many foreign lives are worth the American lives that are spared? The question I would like you to grapple with focuses on the sanctity of life.

The military has always been on the forefront of technological advances. If it weren’t for people always trying to find more innovative and efficient ways to kill and conquer each other, we would not have anywhere near the amount of technology that we do currently. What’s happened as a result of these innovations is that we have increasingly distanced ourselves from the act of killing, without decreasing the amount of killing. We are still using bullets and firearms, but instead of seeing, hearing, and feeling the individuals we are killing, we are merely seeing his or her figure through an iron site, a scope, or worse yet, a computer monitor.

In an interview with a sniper, the reporter asked if the soldier felt anything when he pulled the trigger. His chilling response was, “Yeah, the recoil.” This illustrates the effect of  the progression of our military innovations. As we create weaponry that distances us from the people we are fighting, we are not just distancing our soldiers physically, but we are removing them emotionally and even spiritually from the understanding and appreciation of the sanctity of life.

It is crucial for those doing the killing to fully witness the act, so that they may fully understand the severity of their decision.  The truth of the matter is that we are, in pulling the trigger, condemning our enemies to an eternity of something–whether that is heaven, hell, or simply nothingness–and there is no coming back.

When I play Call of Duty or any other first-person shooter game, I have no emotion connected with the act of killing my opponent. When I pull the trigger, all I feel is the vibration of the controller. Similarly, when the fighter pilot drops a bomb on a target, they do not feel anything except perhaps the shock from the explosion down below. When the sniper takes down his target, all he feels is the recoil. And when the soldier controlling the drone locks in on a group of suspected terrorists, all he or she sees are figures on a screen, no different from those on any other first-person shooter game. There is no better example of this than the always capricious Prince Harry. According to CNN, the young man who once wore a Nazi uniform to a costume party, “compared having his finger on the trigger of rockets, missiles and a 30mm cannon to playing video games.”

The Vietnam War was the first time in history where live footage of the war was broadcast. The result was widespread protests against the war. People were outraged because of what they were seeing. Since then, war has become a source of entertainment, to the extent that you can see footage of live fire combat filmed with the use of Go-Pro cameras fixed on the helmets of soldiers.

We have made a joke out of combat, and a huge reason for this is that we have distanced ourselves from the seriousness of killing. We are so quick to hop on board with the “kill them ay-rabs” attitude, without recognizing that once the trigger is pulled, their life is condemned to an eternity of heaven or hell.

This is not to say that defending your home is wrong. Being a soldier is not sinful. Of all of King David’s sins, being a warrior was not one of them. Nevertheless, God forbade him from building the temple because he was a “man of war and had shed blood.” This is because life is sacred, and though it is not sinful in and of itself to take a life, you are responsible for having committed the act. What is not right is making it easier—emotionally—to take a life, because it cheapens the sanctity of life.

Categories
Opinions

Lessons Learned from Ash Wednesday

The tradition of ashes on Ash Wednesday is not something that I was familiar with before coming to Houghton. This year, after two previous years of Ash Wednesday services, the significance struck. During chapel Wednesday I had the privilege of putting ashes on people as they came for communion, and as the service progressed I became more and more deeply impressed with two thoughts: mortality and equality. These two combined to form a third thought: humility.

Courtesy of http://www.latinospost.com/
Courtesy of http://www.latinospost.com/

One of the first people to come for ashes was an elderly gentleman, who leaned forward to indicate he would like ashes on his forehead. Then later, one of my professors did the same. My friends that I see daily in class and around campus held out hands for ashes. A college administrator was in line with students.  As I took pinches of ashes and made the sign of the cross, I was struck by how similar each of us is. While for some mortality and death is a daily thought, for me—and, I imagine, the majority of my college-aged friends—it is not that high on the agenda. Yet in the process of receiving ashes, we are all reminded equally of impending death and mortality. The words of receiving ashes are eerily similar to those of a funeral service, ashes to ashes and dust to dust.

My insignificance in the scope of eternity was almost as tangible as the dish of ashes I was holding. I was standing there as a college student, giving ashes alike to my peers and those who are my seniors in age, experience, maturity, wisdom, and knowledge. What right did I have? Partway through I started wondering if I was actually qualified for the job. After all, I do not have a degree in giving out ashes. Who was I to remind others of their mortality? Then it struck me: that was the point exactly. It wasn’t that I was ‘good enough’. It wasn’t a degree that I had; on the contrary my very lack of ‘worthiness’ was the whole point. Giving ashes is not a top-down action that I do because I have somehow attained the right. Instead, it is something that I do as an act of service to those who are receiving ashes in humility, and in humility I receive the reminder of my mortality from someone else.

The words from Micah 6:8 ran through my head:
“He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God.” (NIV)

Here at Houghton we talk a lot about justice and mercy. We take classes on international development and bringing Christ to all people through humanitarian work, defense of the defenseless, and being relevant leaders in a changing world. Certainly I am not saying anything negative at all about this work, but sometimes I wonder if in our focus on some of the things that are good we forget that there is more as well.

In Philippians 2:3, Paul says “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves” (NIV)

Do we focus on justice and mercy and conveniently forget humility? Houghton people, in my observation, are fairly good at being good at what we do. What is more challenging in some cases is being good at not needing to inform others of how good we are at what we do. Are we pushing ourselves to excel at our work so that at the end of the semester we can smugly inform everyone we know about getting another 4.0? Or are we pushing so that we are better equipped to glorify God through our lives? In this season of Lent, I challenge and encourage you—as I do myself—to examine your heart and motives before God.

Remember that you are dust, and to dust you will return.

Categories
Opinions

The World on the Mend

The U.S. government has troops deployed in over 150 countries in the world. We are actively engaged throughout the Middle East, North and Central Africa and some South American nations. In the 20th century alone, we witnessed two world wars and a handful of genocides including that of the Armenians, the Jews, the Tutsis and many more. Since the 21st century we’ve seen some of the worst terrorist attacks in history as well as the rise of the Arab Spring. Last but not least we can’t overlook the increase of mass shootings with Aurora, the Sikh temple and most recently, Sandy Hook.

Courtesy of http://www.theatlanticcities.com/
Courtesy of http://www.theatlanticcities.com/

How many times have you thought something along the lines of, “What is wrong with humanity?” or said the classic: “Jesus is going to come back and judge this world.” But is the world actually getting worse? Is it even as bad as it always has been? Or could it possibly be  that the world is actually becoming a better, more beautiful and peaceful place? Statistics are suggesting that the world is actually on the mend.

In a recent editorial about gun control I suggested that violent crime rates in the U.S. have dropped nearly 50 percent over the last 20 years. The U.S. is not alone in this positive trend. Crime rates have been steadily decreasing worldwide. According to Steven Pinker, a prominent Harvard psychologist, statistics have revealed a dramatic reduction in war deaths, family violence, racism, rape, and murder.

Pinker states in one of his three books on the history of violence, “The decline of violence may be the most significant and least appreciated development in the history of our species.” According to Pinker—whose findings are based on peer-reviewed studies—the number of people killed in battle per hundred thousand has dropped over a thousand fold since before the common era. In pre-industrial societies there was an average of 500 killed per hundred thousand. In 19th century Europe the death toll dropped to less than 70 per hundred thousand. In the 20th century, even with two world wars and numerous genocides, the rate dropped to less than 60. Currently there are less than three-tenths of a person per hundred thousand killed in combat.

Sixty years ago there were less than 20 democracies; now there are over a hundred. Authoritarian nations have dropped from 90 in the late 70’s to less than 25 today. Murder rates have dropped over all and especially within families; the rate of husbands murdering their wives has gone down from 1.4 to 0.8 per hundred thousand, and wives murdering their husbands have gone down from 1.2 to 0.2. Rape has dropped 80 percent over the last 40 years and lynching has gone from a rate of 150 per year to zero. Blacks, women, and gays are steadily gaining rights.

According to the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, the amount of undernourished people in the world is steadily decreasing. Life expectancy is higher than ever. Modern medicine never ceases to surpass expectations, finding cures for diseases and new ways for operating on the human body.

As a Christian, this seems to be a problem. Isn’t the world supposed to be on a steady decline toward another “Sodom and Gomorrah” situation? According to St. John’s Book of Revelation there will be wars and rumors of wars in the end times. In the streets, the blood of the martyrs will be running up to the necks of the horses. Then Christ returns and saves us all. This sort of talk is common in a Christian milieu. But what do we say when faced with the evidence of a world that is becoming increasingly better?

God vowed to destroy Nineveh, but when he saw them change he then changed his mind. At the time that St. John was writing the book of Revelation, Caesar was lighting his parties with human torches. Humanity was in a pretty bad place. Now we live in a society with unlimited food, education, and commodities. The trends are suggesting that the rest of the world is quickly “stepping out of history” as Fukuyama wrote. The world is becoming a better and more beautiful and peaceful place.

As Christians are we going to continue, as Jonah did, to beg God to rain down fire and brimstone? Or are we going to accept that the world is getting better? This is not to say that we live in a utopia; there is still a lot of work to be done. But it is nowhere near being beyond redemption.

Categories
Opinions

Future of Catholicism After Benedict XVI and John Paul II

Courtesy of npr.org
Courtesy of npr.org

In a country where Protestant Christianity stands as the dominant religion and Roman Catholicism often seems to be at a disjoint with the operations of Rome, it can be easy to underestimate the significance of this past week’s events. On Ash Wednesday, Pope Benedict XVI said his last mass as the Church’s leader, and became the first Pope to resign in nearly 600 years, the last being Pope Gregory the XII in 1415. I admit that I myself (even as a Roman Catholic) didn’t fully realize the importance of this event until after thinking about it more closely. However, I believe that the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI creates an interesting situation for the future of the Catholic Church, in which the Church will either continue on its liberalizing path, or attempt to recover some of its lost traditionalism.

This is an interesting time in Catholic history. It is not hard to forget that just over 50 years ago the Catholic Church went through radical liturgical and theological changes that defined Roman Catholicism as we so know it today. These changes took place at the Second Vatican Council, the Church’s 21st ecumenical council. Among the most visible changes that the council made was a shift from a universal Latin liturgy to a liturgy that may be spoken in the vernacular of the particular congregation.

The change from a universal Latin Mass seems like a commonsensical move, I mean, doesn’t it make sense to hear a church service in your own language? But to Roman Catholics, this was a huge change, and it is difficult from our present-day perspective to appreciate just how radical it was. The Latin Mass has traditional roots that stretch back as early as the year 250 A.D and since the 16th Century it had been the official language of Catholic services worldwide. For Catholic theologians this was an important aspect of the Church’s practice, as it fostered unity not only with congregations worldwide, but also with the congregations across the historical spectrum. Unity of the believing body of Christ is among the irreducible goods for the Catholic, and the Latin Mass was among the most important tools for transcending cultural boundaries that may inhibit such unity.

However, Vatican II changed the liturgical framework, along with other things, in order to

Courtesy of images.huffingtonpost.com
Courtesy of images.huffingtonpost.com

better accommodate the Catholic Church to the modern world. But many believed that these decisions were compromising the Church’s distinctiveness and encouraging a liberally minded acceptance of wavering ideologies. At what point ought the Church attempt to accommodate for the increasingly pluralistic and scientific age, and when should the Church make the world accommodate to itself? This is a theologically difficult question, and to some, the Second Vatican Council made it loud and clear that the Catholic Church was ready to transgress its traditionally substantiated practices in order to meet the needs of the modern worldview.

But what does any of this have to do with the recent Pope’s resignation? Well, though Pope Benedict XVI has been labeled as a conservative, many forget that he, then known as Joseph Ratzinger, was one of the young theologians pushing for the Vatican II changes. Appearing at each of the Vatican II meetings in a business suit, young Ratzinger, along with Karol Wojtyla, (who would become Pope John Paul II) defended the belief that the Church needed serious changes if it were to remain effective in the changing world. Thus, Benedict XVI stands as one of the last active original members of the Second Vatican Council, and among the last of the original advocates of its general trajectory.

Therefore, the last two popes each had a personal investment in the post-Vatican II Catholic mission: which, generally put, is to seek ways in which the Church can change in order to improve its influence upon the world. Many traditionalists believe that this is almost entirely opposite to the Catholic Church’s mission, which they deem to be maintaining a historical and theological bridge between believers today and the apostle Peter, claimed to be the first pope of the Catholic Church. So, with Benedict XVI leaving his position as the leader of 1.2 billion believers, in what direction will the next pope lead the Church? Traditionalists may claim that now that a main advocate of Vatican II has exited the papacy, it is now time for a pope to attempt to re-emphaisize the Church’s traditional distinctiveness, as opposed to liberalism. Yet, others believe that the next pope may continue Vatican II’s liberalizing trajectory, perhaps enacting changes such as the ordination of women to the priesthood and a progression of LGBT rights. The papacy, leaving behind one of the original advocates of Vatican II, is at a crossroads. The cardinals hope to have elected a pope by Easter, which puts a deadline on the Catholic Church’s decision-making. Regardless of the direction in which this largest body of Christian believers goes, the Catholic Church’s next steps will have immense ramifications for the ongoing dialogue between the secular world and the Christian tradition.

 

Categories
Opinions

What Malcom X Taught a Black Christian

Courtesy of http://lifeofablackgirl.wordpress.com/
Courtesy of http://lifeofablackgirl.wordpress.com/

I believed the lie.  For most of my life I, like many of you, saw Malcolm X as the violent and less-successful opponent of the docile MLK.  There he stood, angrily signifying, indicting white America for the ill-treatment of its darker brothers and sisters.  Malcolm said that black was beautiful and that white society possessed no divine standard by which the black community needed to measure itself.  Malcolm’s analysis troubled me.  His palpable anger made me uncomfortable.  The white society that he described, infused through and through with the philosophy of white superiority, sounded nothing like my bevy of white friends at my college preparatory high school in downtown Chicago.  He was divisive.  He was arrogant.  He was nothing like our good Baptist saint MLK.  And most importantly, he wasn’t a Christian – he was a Muslim.  Appraising his ideology and religious affiliation as less than stellar, I had respect for Malcolm but no need for him.  Or so I thought.

In October of my junior year at Houghton, I obtained a copy of the best-selling Autobiography of Malcolm X in the college library and committed myself to reading the entire memoir.  Commitment gave way to utter captivation as I consumed the entire book with an almost sacred delight.  Upon finishing the book, I read and watched everything that I could find about Malcolm.  Consequently, I came to see that I had been mistaken – flat-out wrong – in my premature interpretation of Malcolm X.  Malcolm was no violent, victim-playing vigilante.  He was courageous enough to speak the unmitigated truth to American society about the horrors of the black American experience.  He hated no one, but he loved black people too much to dilute the reality of their condition.  Getting to know the real Malcolm X changed my life, sparking within me an interfaith dialogue that left me more Christian than ever.

Malcolm taught me that I must have a Christianity that addressed me totally – including my blackness.  It is not secret that Evangelical Christianity has largely been interpreted in Euro-centric perspective, often devaluing, intentionally and unintentionally, Afro-centric religious presentations.  Seeing a theology that justified white superiority, Malcolm saw American Christianity as an aid in enslaving the black conscience.  As a devout Christian and lover of history, I take issue with Malcolm.  It was also the black church that had the greatest purveyor of black dignity.  Black Christianity was in and of itself liberating.

However, I could not dismiss Malcolm’s contention.  Too often black Christians have espoused a Christianity that ignores their blackness instead of appreciating and speaking to it.  Even I had been guilty of this, tricked by the illusion.  Malcolm reminded me that though I am at Houghton – a predominantly white institution – that I am black, and that my faith would have to be able to work outside of the safe confines of this community and speak to the violence and poverty of the largely black and brown Chicago community from which I come.  My faith would have to speak to me wholly.

Malcolm was loud and honest about black injustice.  Possessing a swift silver-tongue and a keen intellect, he was able to communicate what Dr. Cornel West terms, “black rage” like no other.  Even MLK, who purposely avoided such rhetoric in an attempt to avert inciting violent reaction, comes second to Malcolm in this respect.  Malcolm was upfront about black frustration with American racism, and as a result he is scary.  He was a prophetic voice, issuing the clarion call in a strange and desolate land.  Malcolm proved to me that empowerment and reconciliation sometimes means being honest about the horrors of oppression.

Too often, in the interest of cheap, rapid reconciliation, we are encouraged to forgive and forget; to be silent about the atrocities of abuse.  Malcolm said that it was OK, in fact, morally obligatory, to be angered by injustice.  True reconciliation is impossible without an acknowledgement of and repentance from the wrongs committed.  Some dismiss Malcolm as divisive and unhelpful for his honesty.  He showed me that “crying aloud” means “sparing not”, even when the truth is hard and painful to hear.

Perhaps one of the greatest lessons I learned from Malcolm X was taught to me not by his strengths, but by a weakness of his.  While Malcolm’s ability to communicate black beauty, self-reliance, and rage is unparalleled, his early methodology for handling the issues of the black experience was limited, even tenuous.  Thus, he is a compelling reminder that communicating the plight of the oppressed is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

This is where Malcolm is most weak in the first years of his career (1959-1962), and I believe that he knew this.  It is clear following his departure from the Nation of Islam (NOI) in 1964 that he, no longer bound by the exclusionary policies of the NOI, sought to implement a program of political liberation for black people – Black Nationalism.  Meaning, as he said, that black people “should control the politics of [their] own community.”  Malcolm came to see that talking about black dissatisfaction with the system was only effective when coupled with activism to bring about sustainable change.  He “gets” this by 1964, but is unfortunately killed before his maturing revelation can come to fruition.  Malcolm reminds us all that powerful prophetic voices also seek to be solution-finding voices.

Malcolm X wasn’t supposed to teach me anything.  My education and earliest exposure to him sought to assure this.  Malcolm is dangerous.  His dedication to communicating the woes of the marginalized and his appeals to self-reliance pose a threat to the maintenance of the status quo.  I found in Malcolm a challenge to be realistic and intentional about dealing with justice and a renewed dedication to Christian methodology in the fight for human dignity.  My hope is that the entire community will seek to learn more about him.  Allowing his prophetic voice and spirit to motivates us to speak-up and act out.  Let us not believe the lie – Malcolm has something to say and it is worth hearing “by any means necessary.”

Categories
Opinions

South Park and Sex: Censorship at Houghton

Courtesy of http://theplanetd.com/
Courtesy of http://theplanetd.com/

Censorship is one of those ever-present issues on campus that seem to only accentuate the disparity between the student body and the administration. Let’s be honest: who here has not received one of those obnoxious “web filter violation” notifications? The worst part is reading the category in which it throws those websites you always thought were innocent before coming to Houghton. The bright side is that we all get a kick out of it when a professor tries to pull up an educational site that is classified under pornographic material. The question, however, that we need to grapple with is not simply whether or not fart-sounds.net should be blocked, but should anything be censored?

Censorship is a tricky issue due to the fact that most items fall into a fairly large grey area. With drugs and alcohol it is fairly easy to regulate. Don’t drink. Don’t use illegal substances. But how do you legitimize not watching South Park? Is its content more objectionable than that of some of the DVDs in the library’s collection?

The issue of censorship inevitably comes down to how much is too much. We ban pornography, but what about movies and shows whose entire premise revolves around sex? And honestly, what show on American prime-time TV does not revolve around casual sex? Friends? How I Met Your Mother? New Girl? The Mindy Project?  The innocence of Leave it to Beaver is long gone. Yet I can guarantee that most of the student body and a significant chunk of the faculty watch these very shows, if not similar ones.

As far as the usage of language is concerned, Houghton College attempts to maintain appropriate standards. In the student guide for the 2012-2013 year it is written, “Houghton College students are expected to honor God in both speech and lifestyle. The taking of God’s name in vain or the use of offensive, abusive, profane, crude, racist, sexist, or obscene language is prohibited and may result in disciplinary action.”

We, the editorial staff, are disturbed by the threat of disciplinary action for an area of life with such ambiguous standards. Define any one of their descriptors for inappropriate language. For some there are few words in the English language that they would deem inappropriate. For others, however, that list may span quite a significant chunk of Webster’s dictionary.

The fact is that it varies from person to person. The issue with censorship is that it inevitably limits a large group for the sake of the comfort of a few.

2011-2012 Star Opinions Editor Elisa Shearer wrote an editorial a year ago in which she was grappling with the issue of sexuality. The reason we think it is so important and relates to censorship is that it isn’t clear cut. Yes, sex can be scientifically explained; but what about all the other ways in which our bodies and minds are stimulated? As a Christian should we feel guilty for hugging someone of the opposite sex? How about kissing them? Or making out? Now cuddling? Even without going into more detail, it is clear that the line, for some, dividing sin and not-sin does not reside in intercourse alone. Where does the loss of virginity then occur, from a moralistic point of view? It is decided by the conscience of the individuals involved.

This same reasoning can be applied to almost anything (besides maybe murder). What constitutes offensive language varies greatly. What constitutes adult material varies significantly. What defines appropriate dress attire? if you’re an international student from Asia Minor or North Africa you might see a bunch of loose promiscuous women walking around campus; on the flip side, if you’re from southern California you may see a bunch of conservative odd balls. The fact is that some things cannot be defined by a general overarching statement; and this is exactly what censorship does.

There are too many grey areas in life to be able to regulate in such seemingly clear cut ways. Ban sex, alcohol and drugs, but once you begin disciplining adults for what they wear, say and look at, it becomes much too difficult to maintain appropriate standards.

Categories
Opinions

Rap: A Reflection of Culture; Not an Instigator

Courtesy of http://www.glogster.com/
Courtesy of http://www.glogster.com/

I’ll confess, I love rap. And not the clean Christian substitute that started making an appearance with groups such as The Cross Movement and Reach Records. I’m not even a fan of clean secular artists; Will Smith may very well have been the worst thing that ever happened to the rap industry. No, I like the raw, uncut, uncensored rap in all its vulgarity, and, in no way does that mean that I am misogynistic or racist. Rather, I think it is important for us to hear these words for the harsh critique of what our society is. The Marilyn Mansons and Eminems in this world are not responsible for shootings and rapes; rather, they expose serious problems that society struggles with.

Eminem writes, “That’s why we sing for these kids who don’t have a thing… or for anyone who’s ever been through [hard times] in their lives.” This is the reason that rap is one of the fastest-growing and furthest-reaching musical genres in history and why everyone seems so intrigued by it.

Lowkey was right when he sang, “You can never avoid the voices of the voiceless,” and rap gives the voiceless a voice. We can’t ignore the helpless. We must face it, but in facing it we run into layers upon layers of misconceptions, one of which is the notion that rap is evil. After all, any industry that glorifies murder, violence, drugs, rape and general hedonism must be evil, right? But this is the biggest misconception. Rap tells the story of broken people, not a tale of evil’s glorification.

Another misconception is that rap has strayed away from its glory days, that it has somehow lost its way and left its roots. The truth is that there never were any “glory days” that were somehow lost and forgotten; what has happened is simply a cultural paradigm shift. We are faced with different problems and the music industry has shifted its focus to reflect these problems. The poetry of these artists has changed from the socio-political platform it once held in the 70’s, 80’s and even early 90’s to the position it now holds: talking about the accumulation of wealth, drug use, and promiscuity.

During the days of Afrika Mambaataa and the Zulu Nation and the early days of Ice Cube, Eazy-E and Dr. Dre, the issues that needed addressing were those of the outstanding racism in our nation, the economic and social repression of minority groups, and the violence in underprivileged neighborhoods. Obviously these issues have not disappeared, and many are the rappers who still sing about them. But what we are currently experiencing is something different: the Great Recession and a world dominated by a small percentage of elite. And this has changed the focus of the songs being produced.

If you think that the “hood” is a worse place because of rap, you are mistaken. The violence that plagues the hood has yet to hit the suburbs with the influx of mainstream “gangsta rap,” you just need to look at the decrease in crime rates over the last 20 years to see that. What has happened though is that the negative aspects of our culture, the homophobia, misogyny, racism, violence, promiscuity, and substance abuse are being exposed for what they are. Rappers are reflecting a developing trend; not setting examples for youths.

Rather than attacking the rap industry, our time would be better spent addressing the social issues within our culture. Rap is not the cause of the issues. Ice Cube performs a satirical song titled “Gangsta Rap Made Me Do It”—a witty twist on the famous “The Devil Made Me Do It”—in which a professor condemns gangster rap for the ills of society during a classroom lecture. The teacher says, “Prior to gangster rap music the world was a peaceful place. And then all of that changed, violence, rape, murder, arson, theft, war, they are all things that came about as a result of gangster rap.” Ice Cube goes on to list horrific things such as “if I shot up your college, ain’t nothin’ to it, gangsta rap made me do it.” The purpose of this line is not to blame the musical genre for society’s ills, but to recognize the problems’ origination and the need to fix them.

The issue with trying produce “clean” rap is that it too often leaves out the sting that this genre carries with it. It detracts from the message that is trying to be conveyed; the cries of a hurting society. In all this, I am not trying to say that there is no place for Christian rap. By all means, keep “ridin’ with your top down listening to that “Jesus Muzik,’” but do not be so hasty to throw away the rest of rap.

Categories
Opinions

People Kill People — With Guns

Fear mongering is definitely what is happening in this country when it comes to gun control, but I will lay the blame squarely on the shoulders of gun rights activists. Some groups do seem to want to want us to live in fear of attack at any moment, but those groups are the firearms corporations and the NRA.

Guns are being advertised as self-defense weapons for people to protect themselves against home invaders and attackers. The NRA has suggested that school guards be armed in response to the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School.  Proposals for gun control regulations are treated as propositions to remove the second amendment from the Constitution.

http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/
Courtesy of http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/

Conservative pundits blame violent movies and video games as well as poor mental health services for mass shootings, ignoring guns as a relevant factor. The phrase “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is tossed around on a daily basis.

Evan Selinger, associate professor of philosophy at RIT, wrote on “The Philosophy of the Technology of the Gun” for the Atlantic. He explains that many people have an instrumentalist conception of technology, believing that it is value-neutral. According to this view, Selinger writes that technology “is subservient to our beliefs and desires; it does not significantly constrain much less determine them.”

In a contrasting argument, Selinger quotes Don Ihde, a leading philosopher of technology, as saying that “the human-gun relation transforms the situation from any similar situation of a human without a gun.”
Selinger points out that, though guns could have many different possible uses, “such options are not practically viable because gun design itself embodies behavior-shaping values; its material composition indicates the preferred ends to which it ‘should’ be used.”

Guns lead to a “reduction in the amount and intensity of environmental features that are perceived as dangerous, and a concomitant amplification in the amount and intensity of environmental features that are perceived as calling for the subject to respond with violence,” Selinger wrote.
To carry this argument further, it seems to me that the preferred end to which assault weapons and large ammunition magazines are to be used is assaulting people.

Why then, I ask, is it so controversial that President Obama has proposed a renewal and strengthening of the assault weapons ban? Why then, is it so controversial that he has proposed limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds?

The President is not trying to take away Americans’ right to bear arms. Instead, he is pushing for universal background checks and research on gun violence. He is trying to make the country a safer place, and he is not stepping on the rights of hunters or pistol owners by doing so.

I recently read an interesting opinions editorial in the New York Times written by self-professed liberal gun owner Justin Cronin. To give you an idea of where he is coming from, Cronin wrote, “I have half a dozen pistols in my safe, all semiautomatics, the largest capable of holding 20 rounds. I go to the range at least once a week, have applied for a concealed carry license and am planning to take a tactical training course in the spring.”

Although Cronin admitted to being aware that, “statistically speaking, a gun in the home represents a far greater danger to its inhabitants than to an intruder,” he, like many people, owns guns in part to protect his family.

However, Cronin went on to write that, “the White House’s recommendations seem like a good starting point and nothing that would prevent me from protecting my family in a crisis. The AR-15 is a fascinating weapon, and, frankly, a gas to shoot. So is a tank, and I don’t need to own a tank.”

My question to you is whether you think it is right that a renewal and strengthening of the assault weapons ban may be blocked due to pressure from the NRA. Is an assault weapon really just a meaningless piece of technology that has no effect on its owner’s beliefs and desires whatsoever?

Or does an assault weapon have the power to transform situations, indicating to the owner its inherent purpose as a violent killing machine?