Category: Two Views

By Caroline Zimmerman ’24

Houghton College has given me so many good things in the short amount of time I have been here. I have found support, love, knowledge, and new perspectives within the walls of this institution. Some of the most incredible people I have ever met are pursuing and providing education here. As with any institution or organization, however, there are flaws not only in set stances, but also in the unwritten and inferred stances. Acknowledging the ways that Houghton College has unintentionally fostered harm for marginalized students should not be seen as a problem on this campus. Foremost, acknowledging pain that has occurred within any community—and working to stop the furthering of that pain—should not be seen as attacking an inherent part of that community. 

Although Houghton has been subject to various criticisms throughout the years, there have been several interwoven situations that have amassed more concentrated amounts of criticism this semester. The We Are All Houghton exhibition began conversations on Houghton’s role in the negative experiences LGBTQ+ students have endured while attending this institution. Some students used this conversational platform to further explore LGBTQ+ issues on campus, and with voices beginning to be heard more people began to speak and share. This was shown in many different ways, as it was not an official organization or group, but rather the responses of individuals to the We Are All Houghton exhibition. Some students began having more conversations with friends and those holding opposing views. Others took to more tangible forms of expression: placing small, rainbow-painted rocks around campus, putting pins on jackets or backpacks, or wearing apparel with symbols of queer pride. Several individuals also came together to paint the Spirit Rock on campus with the colors of the rainbow. Unsurprisingly, painting the symbol of queerness on a prominent and highly visible symbol of campus caused a great deal of controversy. 

As I speak to the intentions of these and similar actions I need to be clear that although I myself am queer and have talked to many other members of the queer community at Houghton regarding these instances, I am not claiming to be anything close to the singular voice speaking for the LGBTQ+ presence on campus. This would be an absurd claim, as people in the LGBTQ+ community are just as diverse in thought and motivation as in any other community. That being said, the painting of the rock was meant, to me at least, as a way to show queer existence. Not queer acceptance, affirmation, or the demand for systematic change on this campus. So many of the problematic aspects of our society as a whole are rooted in the lack of exposure to people outside of our own realm of existence. The dehumanization, separation, and tale of superiority that is ingrained within the privileged at a young age foster an incredible amount of hatred and justification for discriminatory actions. This is far more apparent to the people affected by these harmful perspectives on a regular basis, and can appear to be nonexistent to the opposite side. Over the past week especially, I have seen this play out. Queer students are frustrated over the countless situations and hardships we have endured while on this campus, and the people who have not dealt with these same issues see no legitimate reason for the school to endure or validate the concerns presented by the queer community. 

This ignorance has far too much power in smothering the voices of the marginalized, and this is the main criticism I see of Houghton. One of the biggest misconceptions about any group trying to further their own humanization/validation in their existence is that their motivations are large and antithetical to the people/group being addressed. The individuals who painted the rock rainbow had no expectation of changing Houghton College’s stance on homosexuality with their paint. The intention was to express themselves, to increase their visibility as a part of the student body, and to compel those who have tried to paint over queer voices in the past to acknowledge the existence of these people. Immediately after this, assumptions of motivation were wildly thrown around, with many people being easily convinced that the rainbow rock was a demand for the morally righteous Houghton to change its stances, accepting all sexual expressions. Although I personally know that this was not the point of painting the rock, this example is rather unhelpful as the intentions of the original rock painters were in no way public. So, I look to a less interpretive example. 

The We Are All Houghton exhibition has been extremely clear and public in their mission and intended effects. According to the website for this exhibition, “… the goal of the piece is to amplify the voices of students who have felt marginalized in regard to their sexual orientation and/or gender identity…” at Houghton. Providing a platform for those who have silently suffered does not equate demanding theological change from a religious institution. Acknowledging and elevating the narratives of pain from students on this campus should not be dismissed for attacking the institution’s moral stances. It should be the groundwork on which conversations take place. It should be accepted for what it brings to the table, and should be used as a resource for what can be done to strengthen and support the community. Houghton College may face many criticisms, and many of them may be unjustified. A platform that is explicitly designed to amplify voices of the marginalized should not be viewed this way, however. When one looks at something and interprets and spreads the idea that it is trying to attack an institution that person has a strong affinity for, the well intentioned platform loses credibility and much of its ability to make a difference. Instead of looking at We Are All Houghton or even the Spirit Rock’s painting and repainting as divisive existences meant to challenge the very ideals of Houghton College, the discussion these things were meant to begin is cut short. This leaves the same voices unheard, and the same pain invalidated. Please, simply acknowledge that pain exists on this campus, and that whether or not the administration and their stances had a direct hand in administering this pain, they do have power to change the way everyone reacts to these instances. The support given by the administration to marginalized students does not require them to change their stances. It only requires them to prioritize people and their experiences, and take steps to create a less hate-fueled and pain-inducing atmosphere for students of all backgrounds and identities.

By Christian Miller ’21

Before writing this opinion, I attempted to reach out to the artists responsible for the We Are All Houghton art exhibit. My goal was to gain insight into the subject itself and the intentions of their artwork, as well as to discuss its impact. Unfortunately, this request was denied. It had almost led me to alter the subject of this article to the question of dialogue and its quality. We are in danger of losing the positive elements of meaningful communication. Where once the Roman Forum and the Greek Agora produced the discourses of Cicero and Plato, today Facebook has become the American Forum. Social media imitates face-to-face dialogue but strips it of that which reminds us of our humanity, such as presence, time, proximity, and impact. Contrast for one moment the nature of the comments on the Houghton YouTube streams, with the discourse between persons in the video itself, and, even further, of in-person conversations. Like the breakup which occurs over the phone as opposed to in-person, we are all too familiar with how the medium alters the nature of the dialogue. 

What will be the nature of the dialogue that emanates from painting the rock, in either case? The immediate answer was a string of social media posts. The first problem with symbols, as opposed to words, is their inherent vagueness and the vast spectrum of possible interpretations that arise. But words, without elaboration, can still be vague. Something I hoped to ask the alumni artists was what their vision of a “better” community looks like. It is easy to identify problems. Karl Marx and Maximillian Robespierre both identified real problems in their respective societies. The issues with these men arose in their proposed solutions. Therefore, identifying the problem and solving the issue are separate matters. Let us not risk “congratulations that may soon turn into complaints,” as a wise man once said. Thus, we may debate or celebrate identification of the problem, but I shall still hold off on applause before I fully understand the proposed solution. In other words, what is the solution? What is better? I have my own ideas, but to achieve any understanding or even mutual ground, dialogue is necessary. 

Well, perhaps they will see this and write their proposed solution in another article. I will be the first to read it, and happily, for, “you can never be over-dressed, or over-educated.” One last thing about dialogue. Is even this article, my article, the proper means of dialogue here? To begin with, this medium disallows intonation or eye contact, and, furthermore, the word limit constrains the formulation of my words. In-person dialogue would undoubtedly be best. But there is something about the written article that permits delineation and explanation, which goes beyond vague and incendiary symbols, or unspecific words like “hate” and “better.” Very well then, I proceed.

The first thing to do is to delineate, to specify, to define, as best I can, the word Conservative. The word has been hijacked by vague expressions tacked onto formless policies and generalized for argumentative utility. 

Conservatism is what it says it is. Simply, it means conserving that which is good. Consequently, we must know what good is, if we are to conserve it. How then does conservatism occur? The answer is not short, and you are better off consulting philosophers like Edmund Burke for the nuanced and comprehensive answer. For our purpose, I will only say that conservation of the good is rooted in truth and the traditions that carry out truth. Traditions maintain values that arise from the Judeo-Christian ethic (which is an understanding of human nature). I mean traditions like the family, the Church, the Judiciary, common law, and other valuable customs, some of which become institutions. Well and good. We have our shot-in-the-dark definition of Conservatism.

Now, when Conservatism claims to conserve that which is good, the difficulty arises in determining what is good. Bertrand Russell may have to depend upon vague instincts, and the writings of Jeremy Bentham, but we, as Christians, are in the unique position of having the good articulated for us by the Creator of the universe and of humankind. It so happens that Jesus told us what is good, and God allowed the irrefutable good to be written down by others for our convenience and due benefit. He made Truth available to us.

Now comes the really difficult part, in speaking for the Conservative viewpoint on the prevalent subject. Of course, you must bear in mind, this is my understanding of the Conservative perspective, which is not universal.

I would like to distinguish between two things. Individual behavior and what ought to be law – or community covenant. I will address the latter first. Conservatism is an understanding of human nature applied to legislative decision-making. In foraging any determination about what ought to be law, we are really saying: what is moral? Very simply, all law is morality. That which is moral is that which is concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior. When legislators outlaw murder, they are implicitly stating that murder is wrong behavior, or immoral, precisely because it hurts the self, others, or the Nation. The same is true with theft, forgery, kidnapping, and so on. Even conventional laws, such as speed limits, are implying that without speed limits, chaos would ensue, and wrong, harmful behavior would follow. Therefore, all legal determinations are judgements about morality, at some level. We cannot avoid making moral judgements in questions of law.

The covenant of the Christian community is the statement of values and principles that gives rise to the community. While the United States Constitution may have rooted its statement of values in Natural Law, the Christian Community roots its statement of values in the Bible. Then I would ask this question: is there any reasonable expectation that the statement of values expressed by the Christian Community should be inconsistent with the teachings and rigorously tested interpretations of the Bible? I answer: were that inconsistency to be permitted, the community would no longer be valid. It would be like forming a book club and not allowing books. If the value statements in the Bible are inconsistently adopted, that inherent inconsistency results in fragmentation, and the community will split apart. If you require that the Christian Community not be permitted to be consistent in its values, you might as well not expect the community to be Christian. Houghton would only be Christian in name, not in principle or fact. Is that reasonable, or even desirable to expect or require?

Now onto the other distinction. Individual behavior. This part is much easier to write. Here, the same principle applies. Christianity makes statements about the formation of communities and moral imperatives binding upon the Christian individual, and these include behavior towards those outside the Christian community, or struggling within. These statements of proper behavior are exactly those alluded to in the alumni artwork and espoused in sympathetic social media posts. I am talking about virtues of love, kindness, respect, and so on. 

I am no Theologian. I do not claim to be any kind of expert on Christian behavior, and I myself am riddled with flaws. But, if the example of Christ were all I had, the inference would still be clear to me. These principles of unconditionally loving others, whoever they may be, are absolutely and immutably maintained by the example of Jesus Christ. These then, are also good things. However, we cannot ignore that warning people of harmful behavior is inherent in the nature of love. Christ did this as well. He loved and He warned of behavior harmful to the self. For this, we require dialogue rooted in love. Let us look no farther than Christ for the best example thereof. 

Thus, we have distinguished between two spheres where this question is concerned: what ought to be the community covenant, and what ought to be the individual behavior. Conservatism means conserving that which is good. Conservatism understands the good through the lens of the Judeo-Christian Ethic. Conservatism, then, states that the Community Covenant ought to be one thing, namely, the properly accepted interpretation of Biblical Truth – that is what is good and what is best for the community – but that individual behavior ought to be another thing, namely, the good example set by Christ, of unconditional love, kindness, and respect, no matter the law, or the covenant. We must ask ourselves: What is good? Where we look for answers will determine significantly the answers we get. That is my opinion.

    Ben Sasse, a conservative senator from Nebraska, has defended the traditional view of the supreme court during the Brett Kavanaugh hearings: the court is to be independent of the legislative process, free from political baggage, and the justices appointed should not be chosen solely by the current political persuasion of Congress. In defending the independence of the highest court, Sasse stated, “our solution is NOT to find judges who will be policymakers.” Sasse is correct in affirming this conventional role of the Supreme Court and Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination hearings are no different. Our Founding Fathers would disapprove of the Democratic Party’s unabashed determination to prevent Kavanaugh from being the ninth supreme court justice. In a word: un-American.

   According to Stanford politics, the rising polarization in America has changed the way we judge, no pun intended, a nominee of the Supreme Court. Americans, and more specifically, our men and women in Congress, put their policy ambitions in the lap of the court. We determine the “qualifications” of the nominee based on their political ideology, hoping that they will pass policies that we want. This is contrary to what our founders desired. They desired an independent judiciary that would determine the constitutionality of laws that Congress legislate. The role of the Supreme Court is not to super-legislate or craft policy, but rather to evaluate whether or not a bill that is passed by Congress is constitutional, meaning that it doesn’t impinge on the natural rights of Americans. The responsibility of approving or rebuking policy proposals (bills) belongs entirely to Congress.

   As Sasse argues, Kavanaugh’s policy opinions should but put in a box titled “irrelevant.” John Adams’ thinking resonates with this: “A question arises whether all the powers of government, legislative, executive, and judicial, shall be left in this body? I think a people cannot be long free, nor ever happy, whose government is in one Assembly.” By choosing to consider Kavanaugh’s policy opinions Congress has done just that: putting the government in one Assembly, the Supreme Court.

   Even worse, Democrats’ attempts to thwart Kavanaugh’s nomination have shifted into the arena of dirty politics. Recently, liberal Californian Senator Diane Feinstein said that she has proof that Kavanaugh tried to rape a young woman while in High School. Immoral sexual acts are unwelcomed and inhumane, but Feinstein’s allegations appear to be implausible. Feinstein refuses to release more evidence as she continues to argue for the postponement of Kavanaugh’s nomination. What makes Kavanaugh’s accuser’s case implausible is that she waited nearly four decades to mention the sexual misconduct. Why weren’t these allegations brought forth sooner? Why are they being discussed now right before the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh? Furthermore, why did the Democrats withhold this information from the Republicans until now? Feinstein admitted that she possessed this information in July.

   Another objection swarming throughout the media is whether or not Kavanaugh will fight to eradicate Woe v. Wade or uphold legal precedent. Granted, Kavanaugh tends to the originalist interpretation of the Constitution and opposes abortion, but he has readily claimed he would follow court precedent. In answering questions from Senators Cory Brooke and Diane Feinstein, Kavanaugh swore to abide by legal precedent.

Additionally, there’s no doubt that Brett Kavanaugh is qualified for the Supreme Court. According to The Hill, “his experience and qualifications are very evident.” Kavanaugh has a twelve-year experience in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, writing over 300 legal opinions. He is a graduate of the reputable Yale Law School, worked as an associate counsel to the White House, and served as a law clerk to Justice Anthony Kennedy.

       President Donald Trump’s nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Judicial branch should proceed without the political baggage. Mr. Kavanaugh is unquestionably qualified for the Supreme Court. Congress should approve of his nomination. Giving back the congressmen their responsibilities is part of Kavanaugh’s agenda, and that is what our Founding Fathers would want. Whether you are left-leaning or right-leaning is insignificant to the process of Kavanaugh’s appointment to the highest court of the land. Turning to the Supreme Court for politics is an abuse of the system. As Sasse proclaimed, “we need to bring back School House Rock.”  

Skylar is a junior majoring in political science.

As a political moderate, I’ve become used to paradoxes. After the election, for example, I received a phone call from both of my grandmothers in the space of an hour. The first is a conservative from Florida. “Thank the Lord,” she told me. “He has delivered us a President.” The other is a socialist from Canada. “We must pray,” she said to me fifteen minutes later, “and remember that trials come to test our faith.” Although I sympathized with one and disagreed with the other, I tried to listen to both with respect – not only because they are my beloved grandmothers, but because I do not belong to a party. I must open myself to hearing the opinions of both, even when those opinions are in direct contradiction with one another.

As one might imagine, with that mindset it has been a long two years. The election was swiftly followed by battles about immigration, the climate accords, Supreme Court nomination No.1, trade agreements, allegations of collusion, more firings than I can count, and cries of potential impeachment. By the time Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination became headline news, I was numb to the controversy. I’ve simply seen it too many times to be impressed. Republicans think he’s the best thing since sliced bread. Democrats are crying foul play. Everybody argues, nobody listens. Worse, the arguments aren’t new. At their core, the debates surrounding Brett Kavanaugh’s appointment aren’t about Brett Kavanaugh. They are about two issues only tangentially related to him: the role of the Senate in Supreme Court Nominations, and the bounds of what is and is not considered rape or sexual harassment.

I’ll start with the first, since it’s simpler, although not necessarily easier to solve. What is the role of the Senate in Supreme Court Nominations? More specifically, on what grounds should they be allowed to reject a candidate? The constitution – unfortunately – is of little help on the issue. “… And [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate…Judges of the Supreme Court” it reads (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2). Advice and Consent are not terribly illuminative words. They could mean anything from an informal brunch to a separate examination process. To interpret the wording, we must depend on legal precedent; how has the Senate handled this issue in the past? Again, that’s a more complicated question than it might originally appear. Until 1925, there wasn’t much of a confirmation process. The Senate did vote, and occasionally rejected people, but unless there was a remarkably compelling reason, the President’s choices were passed. After 1925 the process got a bit lengthier and more stringent. After 1980, it started to take its current shape: an enormously long hearing that runs upwards of 20 hours.

With the increased examination, reasons a Senate might reject a candidate have also begun to shift. Former debates centered around issues of ethics and competence; today we have added questions of political affiliation and how the candidate’s positions might affect the balance of the Court. Still, despite a growing list of factors to weigh, outright rejections to the Court are rare. Should Kavanaugh be rejected, he will be the 9th judge in US history, out of over a hundred appointments. This – for me – raises an important question. I agree that concerns of ethics and competence ought to be part of the Senate’s examination. But given the history, do I believe that party affiliations or balancing those affiliations within the broader court should also be ground for a rejection? I will return to this question in a moment.

The other crucial issue at stake in this appointment is that of rape and sexual harassment. As a culture, we’re in the middle of an ongoing conversation about these two terms. What do they mean? What constitutes them? When and where does an incident move from one to the other? What is the acceptable time limit to claim reparations? What do we accept as proof of their occurrence? How do we keep them from happening? This is a thorny issue, and one on which I frankly feel uncomfortable commenting. I don’t know what happened to those women at those parties; the events took place before I was born. Yet – per the terms I outlined above – if Kavanaugh is guilty of sexual harassment or rape, he should be rejected from the court on ethical grounds and likely arrested. Despite my reticence, this is an issue on which I need to have an opinion; until Western society gets clearer on the morality of these terms, we’re going to keep running into this situation.

So, then, what do I think the appointment? In terms of competency, Brett Kavanaugh qualifies; from all accounts he is a distinguished and effective judge. I also – as a person without party affiliations – do not believe that party politics should influence Supreme Court nominations. If the rape and sexual harassment claims did not exist, there would be no reason to bar his appointment. But the rape and harassment claims do exist, and I take them seriously. Any such charge needs to be investigated, regardless of how many years ago it took place or how convenient it may seem. Given the choice between mistakenly rejecting Kavanaugh from the Court or mistakenly silencing a victim’s voice, I would rather find another judge than ignore a woman’s pain. I’m not saying Kavanaugh should be dropped from consideration without a fair investigation. But I will not feel comfortable with his appointment until he is cleared of ethical doubt.

Anna is a senior majoring in Writing.

Over the summer Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Anthony Kennedy, announced he would be retiring at the end of July, giving President Trump his second appointment to the Supreme Court.  Shortly after Justice Kennedy’s announcement President Trump announced he would be nominating Brett Kavanaugh.

As a progressive Christian and person of color, when I heard that President Trump was going to nominate Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court I was alarmed because he has a concerning judicial record. If appointed to the court, he would cause a conservative majority threatening women’s rights, immigrants, LGBTQ rights, environment regulations, Native American, and other vulnerable populations. Decades of progress could be rolled back. Kavanaugh is 53 years old and could service on the court for decades to come, affecting decades of future decides. His resume makes it clear that his ideology does not support the rights of many vulnerable populations.

For example, since 2006 Kavanaugh has served as a judge in US Court of Appeals for the DC circuit and last year he wrote an opinion that demonstrates women rights are at danger if he is confirmed to the court. A 17-year-old immigrant women who was under federal custody for crossing the border sued the federal government because they denied her access to an abortion. Kavanaugh forced the immigrant women to continue carrying her pregnancy because it was not an “undue burden.”

Additionally, in comparison to the number of white evangelical leaders, evangelical leaders of color have not launched their support for Kavanaugh because they see dangers that a conservative court can have to the Hispanic and Black Christian community. Professor from the University of St. Thomas (Minnesota), Thomas Berg said in a article over summer “A lot of Black and Hispanic brothers and sisters will not appreciate the things that the conservative court is likely to do. These justices are more likely to restrict affirmative action. They’re more likely to reject claims of voting rights… White evangelicals haven’t seen those as part of their agenda.”

This is the second time President Trump has had the opportunity to appoint justice to the Supreme Court. He has the chances to change the narrative of the court with his two appointments by diversifying the court, which is dominated by white male appointments. In the history of the court, only six out of the 113 judge’s have been women or people of color.  President Trump has not taken those chances. Furthermore, the process of the appointing a supreme court justice is becoming more partisan each time it is enacted; justices are confirmed by party lines instead of unanimous consent. President Trump’s last nominee, Neil Gorsuch, was confirmed by the Senate 54–45 votes, with three Democrats joining and all Republicans. If Kavanaugh is confirmed it will be though party lines, and the vote will be really close.

Also, two weeks ago a professor from California, Christine Blasey Ford has accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault accusations, that took place during a high school party in the nineteen-eighties. She is willing to testify before Senate Judiciary Committee. In light of the accusation, President Trump and the Senate leadership should pull back Kavanaugh’s nomination and conduct an investigation. He does not deserve the honor of serving in the Supreme Court with this kind of behavior.  Instead, many Republican Senators and the President have rushed to come out and defend Kavanaugh. In the age of the #MeToo movement, we should not be doubting this type of accusations; they should be taken seriously.

In short we should not be appointing justices to the highest court of the land who present a threat to women rights, immigrants, Native American and other vulnerable populations.

Sergio is a senior majoring in interdisciplinary studies.

I find the current political dialogue disheartening. It seems like we’re all being forced to identify as either Democrats or Republicans, and if we dare to conform by labeling ourselves as one or the other, we have to take all the garbage that goes along with it. Americans want to label everything and everyone, and I find all the labeling unproductive. It only leads to name-calling and finger-pointing.

Putting politics aside, then, I want to talk about what it means to be a pro-life Christian. One conviction to which I hold closely is that all life is God-ordained and that each human being bears the unique image of God. A repercussion of this belief is that I am pro-life, meaning that I am anti-abortion, anti-capital-punishment, and anti-euthanasia, physician-assisted or otherwise.

While taking the risk that those statements may offend one or many of my readers, I want to stress that the most important issues are often the most controversial. I do not wish to step on the toes of those who support abortion rights. Instead, want to point out that people (especially Christians) who call themselves pro-life and yet enthusiastically support the death penalty or bombing the you-know-what out of our enemies should consider whether they’re really pro-life or just anti-abortion.

Believing that God is the one who ordains, sustains, and values His created beings, I struggle with my beliefs about capital punishment and the purpose and extent of war. As a Christian, one of my greatest challenges is to navigate the political sphere while balancing my convictions against the practical realities and complexities of the world. From economics to border control, I find it almost impossible to make definitive statements about some of the hardest issues because there is simply more than just one side to every story.

For example, one of the arguments I’ve heard about the death penalty is whether or not taxpayers should be burdened with feeding and housing the murders and the rapists in prison. Even so, I think Jesus makes it clear that casting stones is not one of our options. Discussions about the convenience of a life are not on the table.

The man on death row, the unborn baby, the terrified North or South Korean citizen hearing threats about the size of our nuclear button—all these people have something in common. God made each one, God extends mercy to each one, and He commands us to love each and every neighbor as ourselves.

Regardless of how much political sense our Biblical convictions make, Christians shouldn’t be the ones eager to point fingers at abortion clinics and then drop bombs on defenseless civilians without batting an eye. I’m sure this makes many readers uncomfortable and defensive, but I still think it’s a truth worth bringing to our attention.

Here’s the simple reality that we need to acknowledge: being pro-life is about more than being anti-abortion. It’s about being a voice for the defenseless and refusing to end lives simply because they’re inconvenient, whether they’re born or unborn.

As Dean Jordan graciously challenged us last week in chapel, we need to be brave enough to ask really hard and uncomfortable questions. We need to be humble enough to entertain thoughts that may reveal that we’re wrong. We need to trust that being wrong is worth it if it means loving the way Jesus loves and changing our lives to more closely resemble the one he modeled for us.

Being pro-life is about so much more than being anti-abortion. It’s about recognizing that black, white, male, and female lives matter. I don’t say “all lives matter” because I think black or white lives are unimportant, but because the unborn, the enslaved, the oppressed, the imprisoned, and even the inconvenient person is loved by God. Our sinful inability to recognize people as valuable and treat them as such does not mean that they are not to be treasured. My challenge to each of you is to consider what it means to be pro-life, and what you can do to defend those who cannot defend themselves.

 

Angela is a first-year student majoring in writing and psychology.

As a Christian, one of my core beliefs is that we should love our neighbors. I work hard to support the people around me, but I’m not always successful. I fail pretty often, actually. Sometimes I feel guilty because I think I should be better at loving my neighbors. Sometimes I feel downright selfish when I avoid people by shutting my door and not coming out for the rest of the night.

But as an introvert, I know I need time to recharge, to sit and watch a movie or do homework without other people needing my attention. It’s completely reasonable to need some alone time, even if it means not investing in other people for those hours. I’m investing in myself. If I didn’t take that time, I’d burn out in a week. All of this may sound obvious to you, but it took me a long time to recognize that introvert time for what it was: self-care.

The more people I meet, the more I notice that I’m not alone. So many Christians are terrible at taking time for themselves. If someone in the community needs a casserole or wants company because they’re in the hospital, the church will immediately encourage their congregants to reach out to them. But why doesn’t the church also encourage people to take personal time? The Bible talks about loving and caring for others, and the church is happy to emphasize that. The church doesn’t spend anywhere near the same amount of time talking about Sabbath and rest.

I’m not saying that casseroles and visiting sick people is bad; I think this is one of the best parts of living in community. Some people need a lot of love and support, and it is a beautiful thing when the church comes together to provide that care. But love and support come at a personal cost. We can’t keep pouring into hurting and needy people without getting anything back and expect that to be a sustainable lifestyle.

Why are so many Christians terrible at self-care? It’s because we are so worried about being selfish. We are told over and over to put others first, and we start to think that any kind of self-care is inappropriate. We look at self-love as an inherently selfish and dangerous idea, but I think that’s total bullshit. Of course self-care can be taken too far and become selfish. Of course we should be generous and mindful of the people around us—but that doesn’t mean we should neglect our own needs.

Ed Sheeran’s song “Save Myself” is a prime example. Sheeran talks about giving of himself for others, only to be completely drained and numb inside. He then realizes, “Before I save someone else, I’ve got to save myself.” His statement has the important word “before” in it; Sheeran doesn’t say “Instead of saving someone else, I’ll save myself.” He’s simply recognizing the proper order of events. We can’t properly love and care for others if we are drained and empty. By taking care of ourselves, we are able to help more people. If Ed Sheeran isn’t convincing enough, the Bible has similar words: “Love your neighbor as you love yourself.” (Mark 13:31) You’ve heard the words a hundred times, but how many times have you thought about this as a two-part idea? Love others as you love yourself. Self-care is implied; it’s not an option, it’s not selfish, and it’s certainly not wrong. 

I think it all comes down to balance. Without self-care, we cannot properly love others, but if we don’t love other people, we miss out on the beauty of community. We are not called to be perfect people. We are not called to waste away helping others. But we are called to love, and this means learning the balance between caring for ourselves and caring for the people and community around us.

 

Gena is a junior majoring in English and adolescent education.