Category: Letter to the Editor

Dear Editor,

I just wanted to let you know how much I have enjoyed the Being Queer at Houghton series you are running. Though The Star has had many articles advocating either for or against issues surrounding homosexuality, it is nice to see something more personal – a story about someone’s life, and the way they have felt and experienced this topic. Though I have heard countless people heatedly argue about homosexuality, I have only actually known one person who openly experienced same-sex romantic feelings and had a homosexual lifestyle.  I really appreciate how these testimonies are humanizing the issue for me instead of it being only an objective debate that we analyze the crap out of.

Mary Cronin’s comment: “I hope that soon the Houghton community will be ready to embrace the humanity of same-sex couples, without feeling the need to sexualize them,” completely took me by surprise.  I never considered that when talking about “homosexuality,” we are utterly sexualizing and dehumanizing the people behind the issue by reducing them to only one of their characteristics.  While I may not agree with a change to the Community Covenant, these articles have been invaluable as I struggle every day with realizing that the stereotypes in my mind are not only inaccurate, but deprive me of appreciating the complexity of each person as a being created in the image of God.

Regards,

Raisa Dibble ‘18

Dear Editor,

While maybe this is not what a letter to the editor is usually about, I still wanted to address those on the Word on the Street section who disagreed with the sexual assault survey.

To those who found it annoying or thought that it came at the wrong time: I understand. I agree that the timing was poorly placed. I won’t lie, when I saw it I knew that the training would be viewed as another stressor. But I’ll also tell the hard truth, as someone who has dealt with sexual assault both on and off campus – I was ecstatic.

Was it annoying?  I’m sure. Was it something to make the campus safer? Yessir. Would I take making the campus safer of not having something that I viewed as annoying? Most definitely.

To those who find that this training  won’t change anything: I need you to hear that sometimes it’s not just a matter of the heart. Sometimes it’s a lack of education on the topic. I know of several instances that could have been prevented if only the perpetrator was more educated. So maybe this wasn’t the best implementation of educating Houghton, but people do need to be educated.

To those who questioned its usefulness: was it as effective as it should be? No. But it was a step in the right direction. I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, that you don’t hear about what goes on within the Houghton Bubble. I hear about a lot of stories, but maybe you’ve heard of none to one. However if you’ve heard of just one, that shouldn’t matter. Whether it’s one instance or ten, shouldn’t we be doing something to stop and prevent it? As someone who has dealt with sexual assault at the college I feel like asking if the campus needed to be educated devalued any singular instance. Does it need to be a multitude? Isn’t one instance enough? Shouldn’t we stop and prevent it before that happens?

Houghton is safer than most campuses – but it is not safe. No matter what there’s always room for improvement so I commend Houghton for taking a step in the right direction.

Bethany Schoonover ‘18

Dear Editor,

People generally don’t like being required to do things they haven’t signed up for. That’s no surprise to any of us. I’ll admit, when I first received the email about the required “Every Choice” training, I wasn’t excited about it. However, after completing the training, I felt empowered to take a stand on issues of bystander intervention, stalking, and more. After all, as the training showed us, most of us don’t intervene because we ‘aren’t sure how to respond.’ Not knowing how to respond isn’t a valid excuse for non-action.

When reading the “Word on the Street,” I realized that many students may not have gotten the point of the training. Yes, it DID need to be campus wide because all of us (regardless of if we admit it publicly or not) are affected by issues of sexual harassment or assault. If you think you aren’t affected – then honestly, you haven’t been listening enough.      Sexual assault, harassment, and stalking are NOT matters of the heart. They require having the knowledge and skills to handle these situations WHEN, not IF, they come up. Training DOES matter – it empowered me and I am confident that it empowered others as well. The “Every Choice” training was an hour of your life that may save a life one day – maybe your own, possibly a friend’s life, perchance a stranger’s life. And remember: we won’t be in this Houghton Bubble forever.

Lauren Bechtel ‘16

Dear Editor,

As the school year comes to an end I want to share about how God has been working in me. A year ago I lost my only child to cancer. Bonnie died less than a year after graduating from Houghton college in 2013.

I have struggled with my loss. Every day I yearn to see Bonnie again, but I know she is with God in heaven. As John 3:16 says, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.” It comforts me to know that those in Christ will never perish because they have everlasting life.

The Holy Bible teaches that every human being has a soul. Our soul is our true self. It is where our complete, core existence is found. Our soul is who we really are. Every Christian can have the assurance that even in physical death there is eternal life that follows. Our body may die but the soul of every Christian goes to heaven. A believer’s physical body then awaits Christ’s call when their physical body will be united with their soul. I Thessalonians 4:13-18 says that those who have fallen asleep (died) will be gathered, both soul and body, unto their Lord.

My question is, “What is in your soul?” Is your identity based on your looks, what you do, your sexuality, receiving justice, or getting your own way? Or is your soul grounded in Christ? Is your main desire in life to love God and keep His commandments in order to honor Him?

Life on earth is not fair. We will not always get what we think is our right. However, our identity needs to be in Christ alone, even if that requires us to let go of those things we treasure here on earth.

Yours in Christ,

Dr. Jim Szymanski

A Reaction to Inclusive Language: A Linguistic Perspective

Inclusion is a dangerous game. It is easy to seek to include some group at the expense of another. I think this is particularly dangerous as to how we understand God.

While female terms are sometimes used to describe parts of God’s nature, male language is used more frequently. Jesus tells us to call God our Father (as opposed to Mother, or Parent, or maybe Pleterion) because the characteristics of a father are apparently are well suited for describing something about God’s nature.

The human mind organizes information through linguistic categories. English has two categories for gender: male and female; him and her.  No widespread neutered terms exist.  Everyone is fitted into a category. We need some way to speak about God, so we are reduced to fitting Him into a gender category.  If we cannot use a gender then we are forced to call Him an “it”, which in English, reduces God to the status of an animal or inanimate object. English lacks the ability to talk about a personal entity without putting that entity into some gendered category.

So instead of being mad that male language is used to talk about God, it seems much more useful to think about what it means to attribute gendered attributes to God. How do male terms enhance our understanding of who God is?  How do the female terms do the same? Who are we to try to neuter God?

Alison Emry, Class of ’15

Dear Editor,

I would like to address LGBQ Inclusion: Community Covenant Amendment. The Houghton Community Covenant is very important as it expresses proper and improper ways to display Christian behavior. The word behave expresses how a person conducts their life. Every aspect of the way Christians live should be based on the Holy Bible.

The Houghton College Doctrinal statement begins with, “We believe that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are fully inspired of God and inerrant in the original writings and that they are of supreme and final authority for faith and practice.”

The Houghton Community Covenant states, “We believe that Scripture clearly prohibits certain acts, including . . . engaging in sexual relations outside the bonds of a Biblical understanding of marriage, including premarital sex, adultery and homosexual behavior.” The importance of Scripture in the above statements is monumental. It is important for Houghton College to affirm its belief in a Biblical basis for marriage.

The secular view of marriage, extramarital sex and homosexual behavior appear to be shaping the discussion of a covenant amendment more than Scripture. The suggested amendment of removing “engaging in sexual relations outside the bonds of a Biblical understanding of marriage, including premarital sex, adultery and homosexual behavior” and replacing it with “. . . and engaging in sexual relations outside of the bonds of marriage” creates confusion. The problem with this suggested amendment is that it leaves out what Scripture teaches on this topic. It also opens up the possibility of redefining the Biblical definition of marriage which is only between a man and a woman.

The sexual prohibitions in the Community Covenant including  premarital sex, adultery and homosexual behavior are clearly listed in the Holy Bible as transgressions against God and others. The consequences of such acts are found throughout Scripture. Sinful behavior has consequences. As Christians who believe in God and His Word, our behavior should be above reproach. Everything we do or say should be influenced by Scripture. We should not submit to secular pressures that encourage us to behave contrary to God’s will and His Holy Word. We cannot expect to receive God’s blessings when we disobey His commandments.

Dr. Jim Szymanski

Houghton, NY

The Community Covenant should not be amended as Luke Lauer proposes in his piece, “LGBQ Inclusion: Community Covenant Amendment.”

Lauer’s proposed change misses the word, “Biblical.” If, to quote Wynn Horton, we want “‘to serve the college’s purpose while maintaining its loyalty to a Christian heritage’,”, then why would we remove the word “Biblical”? What, besides the Bible, should define the “bonds of marriage” for a Christian college?

Moreover, if the change included the word “Biblical”, the Covenant would still implicitly forbid homosexual lifestyles.

The core of “homosexual behavior” is sexual attraction between people of the same sex. “Behavior” implies activity in fulfillment of that attraction. When a newly dating straight couple kisses each other but refrains from sex, they are not breaking Biblical bonds, but they are still acting in partial fulfillment of the sexual attraction between each other. A partial fulfillment of sexual attraction also takes place when two gay men kiss each other. The difference is that the kiss of the same-sex couple cannot find an appropriate ultimate fulfillment in the sexual union of the marital relationship. Homosexual behavior, then, has no proper telos. Thus, the problem for our LGBQ community members trying to reconcile even the partial fulfillment of homosexual sexual desires with Christianity is that such reconciliation is, by any honest reading, biblically impossible (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

For these reasons, I also disagree with the contention that the wording about which Mr. Lauer complains is truly vague. We can determine from the college’s policy enactments and from the words of Dean Michael Jordan that when the college forbids “homosexual behavior”, it certainly forbids homosexual intercourse. But it also forbids more than that. And rightly so, for other forms of “homosexual behavior” outside of intercourse are also, by logical extension of the Bible’s words, unchristian and unacceptable.

It is indeed unfortunate and problematic if homosexual students feel isolated from their heterosexual peers. However, the way for gay and straight students to be reconciled is not to sever Houghton from biblically-based bans on sinful behavior. That would primarily serve only to sever Houghton from the Christian faith.

-Aaron Rider ‘15

Dear Editor:

You may have noticed the posters which have recently been put up around campus advertising for the VOCA office. Two pictures on each poster show the contrast between two employment situations, and the captions read: “Good résumé, bad résumé.” The “good résumé” photo shows a well-dressed, smiling white-collar worker, while the “bad résumé” photo is of an obviously dissatisfied laborer performing a menial task.

While this is a clever and eye-catching way to advertise for the VOCA office and its services, I believe that the message it sends is far from the intentions a Christian is supposed to have in regards to employment. The message conveyed by the posters is this: if you develop a good résumé, you will then be able to secure a successful job, whereas if your résumé stinks, you’ll be stuck serving fast food at McDonalds.

To suggest that there is something wrong with doing work which comes with a high salary is certainly not my intention. However, there is also nothing wrong with spending a lifetime joyfully being a witness for Christ at a McDonalds cash register. I applaud the VOCA office’s mission of connecting students with “opportunities to serve” and preparing them to “participate in the work [God] is doing on earth.” That being said, perhaps we should consider the way that Jesus would serve people fast food: probably with a smile.

Ellenore Tarr, Class of 2018

Dear Editor,

I have concerns about the man who spoke in chapel this past Friday.  My big question is why did he still want to be identified as a homosexual then even though he doesn’t practice homosexuality?  As Christians when we first accept Christ, we are brand new.  Our past is behind us and we can live a new life with God on our side.  2 Corinthians 5:17 (NLT) states, “This means that anyone who belongs to Christ has become a new person. The old life is gone; a new life has begun!”  This man doesn’t have to struggle with sin anymore.  God has made him new.  His identity is in Christ.

Galatians 3:25-26 (NLT) strongly proclaims, “And now that the way of faith has come, we no longer need the law as our guardian. For you are all children of God through faith in Christ Jesus.”  I don’t understand why this man wanted to be known by his sin and not be identified as a child of God.  God healed people of their illness, He has fed the 5000, and He most importantly conquered death!  If the man claims he is a follower of Christ, I don’t see why God couldn’t heal him.

This universe is endlessly big.  Our human problems are not impossible for God.  I have heard some people who try consoling say it isn’t successful for this issue.  Matthew 19:26 (NLT) strongly claims, “Jesus looked at them intently and said, “Humanly speaking, it is impossible. But with God everything is possible.”  God doesn’t always quickly heal people in an instant.  It can take some time.

We need to be there for people who struggle with this sin.  I don’t hate homosexuals.  I believe we need to pray and love them.  I believe wholeheartedly that God who created this vast universe and who has conquered death can heal homosexuals.  I think this should be Houghton’s new direction with this issue.

By Rebekah Marie Bunal, Class of ’16