Author: Allyson Murphy

Currently, 31 states in the U.S. still have the death penalty. According to ProCon.org, the remaining 19 states  (including New York) and the District of Columbia have abolished it. Personally, and for as long as I can remember, I have never been in favor of this inhumane practice. Particularly from a Christian perspective, I do not believe an individual should support the murder of another divinely created being.

Before I go further, I do wish to address the simple fact that moral issues, such as the one in question, hold no cut and dry ethical answer. However, as a pacifist I find that war is never the ideal answer. Yet, I also understand that military duty and service to protect one’s homeland and the innocent may at times be necessary. Furthermore, as much as I deeply hate to admit it, sometimes nothing other than combative action may aid a desperate situation. However, condemning to death an imprisoned individual who is no longer a societal threat is far different than those deaths which occur from “just” actions of war.

Many readers may argue that our country cannot fiscally afford to imprison our most dangerous death row inmates for life. To answer that possible rebuttal, I simply ask those readers to find my article from a few months’ ago. That article discusses our country’s mass incarceration problems and mandatory minimum sentencing. In short, our country has every ability to cut down on federal prison costs while also nationally abolishing the death penalty. We, as a nation,  need to stop unjustly incarcerating low-level nonviolent offenders who often need rehabilitation more than long term prison sentences.

However, let us get back to the topic at hand. According to the New York Times, in the 1990s, 80 percent of Americans supported the death penalty while presently 60 percent of Americans are in support. And while this decline is good to see, the problem still remains: the majority of Americans are still in favor. Killing another human being is still considered “okay” in the eyes of many citizens. Quite frankly, this fact disgusts me.

The death penalty–aside from being a legal form of murder–is also, as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Stephen Breyer firmly states, an “unreliable, arbitrary, and racially discriminatory” sentence.  Furthermore, Breyer, along with others, agrees that the death penalty violates the eighth amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment (New York Times). It is indeed cruel to kill another being when this action is not necessary to protect the safety of others.

In continuation, I also believe that another heated social justice issue must be brought into the discussion. It is deeply contradictory for one to be both pro-life and in support of the death penalty. If all life is precious (as I agree it is), then how can one justify murder on death row? Regardless of who the criminal in question has murdered and what other crimes they have committed, he or she does not deserve death. These criminals (yes murderers) are citizens of God’s created earth just as you and I are. And even when on death row, they may still have meaningful relationships with others beings.

Thankfully the death penalty is losing support throughout the nation. And “in the past 14 years the Supreme Court has barred the execution of several categories of people” which includes “minors, the intellectually disabled, and those convicted of crimes other than murder,” (New York Times). Yet, as the article’s opening statistic mentioned, justice is far from attained. The death penalty still haunts our legal system.

Lastly, I fully recognize this article is short and only touches on the surface of many incredibly difficult ethical questions. However, all individuals must recognize a somewhat simple, yet often forgotten truth of life: existence is obsolete without relationships. We, as divinely created beings, only exist because of relationships. We inevitably relate to the Sacred, to fellow living bodies and to creation daily. With this in mind, questions such as the ones presented above must not be seen as unrelated. Inherent connections are ingrained within the framework of any ethical dialogue.

I grew up going to a small public school: this meant that though I grew up with close friends who shared similar values, I also grew up with many people who shared quite different values. It was difficult at times, but more than anything, this childhood environment challenged me daily to learn from, and interact with, people different than myself.

Since coming to college I have comfortably settled into a demographic of like-minded people: Houghton students, are, for the most part, a homogeneous group of Christian believers somewhere in their late teens to early twenties. Yes, our outlooks do differ, but very seldom are these differences extreme. Until recently, besides my annual summer night at the Allegany County Fair, I had not spent much time outside of Houghton.

However, this past summer working far from home, I was, for the first time in my life, divorced from all familiar faces and in a place where Christianity (along with every other faith) was among a small minority of co-workers. I was immersed in a diverse employee demographic: people varied greatly in ages, in work- and life- experience, were from all over the world and from almost every type of background. It sounds strange, but in the mountains of Montana I found myself in “culture shock”- where were ‘my people?’ Where were the professing believers and the academic enthusiasts?

At first this culture shock was overwhelming. I thought about leaving early: yet, I quickly found relief, because I realized this group of diverse people were, perhaps, the most welcoming group of individuals I had ever been among. By and large, we, co-workers, knew each other’s problems, we knew each other’s opinions, and for all our differences, we accepted each other. Sure, I did not share many values with most co-workers. There were numerous times I still felt uncomfortable, but I learned to both relate to people with what was shared and, as cliché as it sounds, to appreciate others for our differences.

In John Caputo’s book, What Would Jesus Deconstruct? he discusses philosopher Jacques Derrida’s reflections on the concept of hospitality. Hospitality, in general terms, is the welcoming of the Other, of the different individual, into the same, into one’s own ‘circle of concern’ as philosopher Martha Nussbaum would say. In a polarized society, where we have access to what we want when we want, a message of hospitality is more necessary than ever. Anyone can click to the news website they want or the TV show they prefer without a second thought. No need to go outside what is comfortable.

Therefore, in relation to our current age, Caputo not only clarifies Derrida’s ideas, but brings them into Christian conversation by stating that in order for someone to be hospitable no actual ‘invitation’ will exist, since everyone- neighbor or stranger, friend or enemy- will be welcome. This understanding, of course, brings quite a bit of risk into play: how can we ever be safe from inviting someone or something harmful in? The answer is simple and one Christians may often shy away from: if one eliminates risk, then hospitality is no longer possible. It is simple, with hospitality comes risk.

However, this truth should not frighten Christians away from practices of hospitality. Caputo elaborates, “There is always risk in everything worthwhile” (77).  There is something worthwhile in taking a chance and learning to spend time with people different than oneself. The mystery of the unknown can cause one to gain greater understanding, to grow, to learn, and ultimately to strive for further hospitality.

Inevitably, everyone will fail when it comes to being hospitable for, as we all know, no one is perfect. However, just as one strives for unconditional love, one should strive for hospitality.

To relate Caputo’s points back to my own personal experience, when I was younger I could have refused to go to public school. This summer I could have decided to come home early. However, I didn’t. And I think that for all the challenges I faced, both my decisions to stay, to learn and to grow in discourse with the Other were powerful, life-changing, experiences.

Most of you reading this probably know the parable of Luke 14. The rich man invites the poor, the lame, the criminal, into his house for a Banquet feast.  As followers of Christ we, likewise, should invite the Other into our lives. Or, if we feel so inclined, we should go out and seek experience with the Other.

For each individual, being hospitable and reaching out to the Other may vary; on our campus, it may challenge an individual to commune with a member of the opposite political party, a member of the L.I.F.E. Club, or a member of the LGBTQ community. Essentially, people must stop viewing those different as only separate and/or harmful- people deserve  attention, love, respect, and hospitality. Therefore, I encourage you to take a chance and see what happens when you decide to chase after that crazy concept of hospitality and venture beyond the limits of the familiar.

Evacuate. This is a command I never pictured myself to be a part of. And yet on July 22nd of this summer this command became reality for many around me.

This summer I worked in the heart of the West: Glacier National Park (GNP). It was an incredible summer filled with hiking, stargazing, and- at the beginning- bonfires, but as July started to wind down bonfires were no longer an option: my park, our park, was on fire.

I worked at the East entrance to GNP right off the famous Going to the Sun Road, which takes you directly through some of the park’s most famous scenery. On July 21st at 4:30pm my manager informed us that, at the time, a small fire, the Reynolds Creek Fire, had started near the major park attraction, Logan Pass. We, the employees, should know in case customers started asking about the smoke filtering into our site. Thankfully the fire was not a threat- yet.

By the next day the fire had more than doubled and out location was drenched in smoke. With a raging fire just six miles away, we could no longer see our beautiful mountain ridgeline. The sun was red and the sky was from then on ash.

My life this summer was fully submerged into the impacts of climate change. It is important to realize that forest fires are often a natural occurrence with lightning strikes being the most common cause. However, as Discover Magazine reported in late July, “more than 60% of the [West] is in severe drought.” This is not a natural cycle: rising temperatures, caused by human activity, are creating conditions that are drier, harsher.

According to the National Wildlife Federation longer fire seasons exist now because snow is melting, on average, 1 to 4 weeks earlier than it did 50 years beforehand. Furthermore, it is projected that by mid-century western North America’s temperature rates are expected to rise 3.6 to 9 degrees more by mid-century and it is projected that 11 western states (including Montana) will double in amount of forest fires per year.

Our nation has reached a schism between those who believe climate change is both real

and caused by human activity and those who do not – the latter is unfortunately where much of the evangelical community falls.

It is here that I ask: How can so many still stay in the dark? As reported last year by one of Time Magazine’s 100 Most Influential People, Houghton’s guest speaker climate scientist Dr. Katharine Hayhoe, 97 % of climate scientists believe that climate change is both real and anthropogenic (caused by humans).  

According to the National Interagency Fire Center, as of today, September 3rd, the U.S.A. has a reported 59 large fires with 14 of them located in this state I have come to love. So far in 2015 over 8.4 million acres in the USA have burned, a number shockingly greater than the 5.6 million acres burned in the past ten years – combined.

I recognize that statistics can only do so much for a reader. But this article is not just a statistic. It was a reality for me this summer and is still a reality for all.

Daily, tourists of GNP innocently ask why no glaciers are visible driving down Highway 89. My gut reaction each time is to laugh- as if, glaciers were simply plastered to the side of each mountain for tourists to casually view out of a car window. However, truth be told, the glaciers once were much more visible. Before coming here, countless friends and family asked if I was going to GNP to see the glaciers before they melted since as the National Park Service reports GNP houses 25 glaciers presently compared to the over 150 glaciers once here in 1850.

Furthermore, this year GNP has had far less snowfall and rain than ever before. The rafting water I went down this year barely reached Class 2 rapids instead of the normal Class 4 rapids. A favorite hiking destination, Iceberg Lake, was home to only two icebergs instead of tens. I only slid down snow shoots during June when usually the snow is far more abundant.

My summer here will be remembered as one clouded in smoke. This summer five fires have burned in GNP and neighboring areas. Most mornings I wake up in a haze.

As I reflect on my Montana experience, I also look back on my summer I am reminded of summer’s beginning. Before I came to GNP I attended my family reunion in Ohio. My family is composed of evangelical believers who, unfortunately, accurately portray the evangelical demographic when it comes to views on global warming.

We sat in the humid early June evening gathered around a campfire.  As people finished their food family member repeatedly threw Styrofoam plates into the fire. My sister and I exchanged appalled looks: did our family members not realize what they were doing?

After the fifth plate was thrown, we mentioned that burning Styrofoam was extremely bad for the environment. At this comment my uncle, who loves boy scouts to bird watching, stated, “Global Warming doesn’t exist.” I was shocked. This man who grew up taking his sons to Yellowstone and Yosemite, this man whose own son was an Environmental Studies major, pointedly refused to believe the facts.

Why are so many unwilling to face the facts? Why do so many refuse to act? Our faith calls us to steward the earth. Our chance is quickly fading though to make a difference. Yet, it is not too late. As this academic year at Houghton begins I encourage all to look at the impacts we each take part in and see how you can make a difference. Personally, I recommend looking into the group Eco Reps led by Sustainability Coordinator Brian Webb here on campus.

We must all recognize the truth: climate change exists. Whether it is a forest fire in Montana or a harsh winter in New York there is clear evidence of new and detrimental shift.

Houghton College’s doctrinal statement asserts, “We believe that there is one God, eternally existing in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” Many people, including myself, recognize the unfortunate terminology used in this statement and here is why. In our present world many, sadly not all, people recognize the importance of gender-inclusive language. Why does our college not? When referring to God, instead of saying, “Father” our language should be inclusive, perhaps using words such as “Maker” or “Creator.”

Many of you reading this article may strongly disagree with this opinion. Others may agree, but ask, Why is gender inclusive language so important?

First, God is not male. The bearded white man in the clouds is just an image from your picture book bible. Throughout the bible numerous references to God as male and God as female are made.

For example, in a recent workshop at the college, Sarah Derck, professor of Old Testament, mentioned the Hebrew word “Shaddai” which is used 48 times in the Old Testament. Since the 1930s etymological and linguistic research done has found convincing reason to think that “Shaddai” has been falsely translated in the past.

Traditionally, the word has been translated as “Almighty” or “God Almighty” but with further research, scholars have found that “Shaddai” is from a different Akkadian root word signifying the word ‘breast,’ Derck stated, “Theologically, the significance is an astounding reference to the nourishment and nurture of God signified by female anatomy, as part of the range of metaphors used for God.” Metaphorical language and imagery fills Scripture. Biblical language references God with both male and female terminology- neither is literal.

Personally, though I grew up in an egalitarian home, I was still under the misconception of God as male. At church I was always told of God the male shepherd looking for his lost sheep (Luke 15:1-7). However, I never read a children’s book or had a single Sunday school class centered on the very next parable in the gospel of Luke. The first verse of this parable: “Or suppose a woman has ten silver coins and loses one. Doesn’t she light a lamp, sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it?” (Luke 15: 8 NIV). The shepherd and the woman serve the same purpose: comprehensive metaphorical language representing God’s love for humanity.

Now onto the question: “Why should one care if God is referred to as male?”

The answer seems obvious: using inclusive language includes everyone. In her book, The Second Sex, Simone de Beauvoir discusses the detrimental effects of having men be viewed as the norm in society. De Beauvoir writes, “A man never begins by presenting himself as an individual of a certain sex; it goes without saying that he is a man.” In society, men have historically been seen as the ‘Absolute’ or ‘norm.’ More particularly, in American history, white men have been seen as the Absolute, while minority races and women have been the derivative from the norm: in de Beauvoir’s words “He is the Subject, he is the Absolute- she is the Other.” If female is the Other, she then feels that in order to validate her own capabilities and be part of the ‘norm’ she must conform to the Absolute or ‘male.’

When God is repeatedly referred to as ‘male,’ women feel as if they are the Other and men are the Absolute. In relation to biblical language, Kristina Lacelle-Peterson, professor of religion, stated, “Given that Scripture depicts God sometimes with feminine imagery and God as the one over everything in whose image we are mad, male and female, it is a huge reduction of God to assume God is male.”

Not only are we reducing our view of God when we say ‘male’, we are also ordaining men with inherent God-like qualities, which are denied to women. This type of thinking then encourages the harmful image of men as sole ‘master,’ ‘provider,’ ‘spiritual leader’ the list goes on and on. Women are more than capable of leadership roles and this includes spiritual life leadership. The false view of God as ‘male’ perpetuates the unhealthy view of male as pre-ordained leader.

Through advocacy for gender-inclusive language I am stressing the reality that all people, male and female,  are made in God’s image. God is non-gendered and our language and terminology should reflect this fact. Our college’s spiritual life, academic life, and all other facets should support equality and inclusion by adhering to gender-inclusive language.