Category: Opinions

Categories
News Opinions

Iraq 10 Years after the Invasion

It has been controversial since it began.  It divided Americans: some watching as the number of troop deaths mounted, others warning that the costs were worth it if Saddam Hussein’s threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) had any merit.  After over one trillion dollars invested in the country, no WMDs discovered at all, the capture and execution of Saddam Hussein, 4,000 dead American soldiers and over 130,000 Iraqi civilian deaths, many still wonder whether the Iraq war was worth it.

Courtesy of propublica.org
Courtesy of propublica.org

The average current college student was 10 to 11 years old when the invasion began.  I remember staying up with my Dad late that night watching television and waiting for the bombs to fall on Baghdad, Iraq’s capital.  I remember the “Mission Accomplished” banner after the fall of Baghdad just a few short weeks later.  Then the insurgency began, for which nobody was prepared.

Bush’s claim that cutting off the head of the problem would immediately resolve it proved to be wrong as the United States found itself bogged down with al-Qaeda groups and Shi’a extremists using car and suicide bombs in hope of dominating each other through attempting to get their respective populations to hate and kill each other.  It looked as though the United States was about to fail miserably, as critics said it would whenever the country attempts “nation-building”.

But then the surge happened and, after 120,000 U.S. soldiers were sent to Iraq, along with “Awakening Councils” that joined the U.S. troops to drive out al-Qaeda (whose brutal tactics had alienated large swaths of Sunnis), violence began to decline.  As security increased, investments for Iraq’s oil reserves, which some argue are larger than Iran’s, helped to bring more stability to the country.  Even after U.S. troops withdrew in December 2011, violence has remained relatively low.  There are still the occasional bombings, such as the one that killed over 60 Iraqis on the anniversary of the invasion, but, overall, Iraq remains much more stable than it was throughout the insurgency.

However, problems remain.  Iraq is a shaky democracy set up to distribute power equally among the three big ethnic groups: Shi’a, Sunni and Kurd.  But after the attempted arrest of a Sunni vice president for supposedly running death squads, arguments began between the central government and autonomous Kurd regions. These debates were over who has rights to oil reserves. With numerous Arab Spring-style protests against the government of Nuri al-Maliki, a Shi’a that Sunnis accuse of becoming increasingly dictatorial, and suicide bombings continually trying to stir sectarian tensions, Americans may wonder if, in fact, the U.S. should have ever even invaded in the first place.

In the end, nobody can say that the United States made the right choice.  Regardless of the critics that say it only stirred ethnic tensions, Iraq never did slip into a civil war or become a failed state.  At the same time, a democracy was set up, but it remains incredibly fragile, particularly considering that for almost 11 months in 2010 the country could not form a government due to political infighting between Shi’a and Sunni politicians. Nevertheless, economically, the country has been recovering; tourism flourishes as millions of Shi’a pilgrims flock to mosques and shrines throughout the country.  Foreign direct investment in the country’s oil reserves has helped to rebuild a crumbling infrastructure, and in the Kurdish regions cities bustle and commerce thrives, with virtually no violence.  The Sunnis, however, claim to be finding themselves marginalized politically and economically, creating the potential for a new conflict as frustrations rise.

Whether or not you agree that it was a good idea to invade Iraq, never forget that despite the bad, many good things have happened in the country.  This is a milestone for our generation and continues to be pertinent to an American foreign policy that promotes the establishment of liberal democracy around the world, as liberal democracies do not fight each other.  Based on this logic, this war was in America’s national interest.  A good choice?  I am not sure, but it is something that will have a large impact in the Middle East for years to come.

Caleb Johnson is a third-year student with a double-major in international relations and history.

Categories
Opinions

Women Banding Together to Promote Feminism

I am a proud feminist. Make no mistake, though; I am not a feminist with a chip on her shoulder. I am appreciative of everything that the feminist movement has done for me. I love that I can vote. I have great plans for my life that do not feature getting married and having children. I would not be opposed to marriage but I have not made it a priority because I do not have to marry to survive. I have nothing against women who want to get married and have children, though. I am simply thankful for options.

Courtesy of chsaplitprideandprejudice.weebly.com
Courtesy of chsaplitprideandprejudice.weebly.com

Yet, we need feminism. Women still earn only 77 cents on the male dollar in the United States. The Steubenville rape case showed that victim-blaming rape culture is alive and well. Young girls all over Twitter jump to Chris Brown’s defense anytime someone mentions the fact that he hit Rihanna with enough force to cause major bruising and say heartbreaking things about how they would let Chris Brown beat them to a bloody pulp.

A few weeks ago, Hanna Rosin published a short article on Slate called “Marissa Meyer Thinks Feminists Are a Drag. Is She Right?”. Rosin’s main premise was drawn from an interview with PBS in which Marissa Meyer described feminists as women with a “chip on the shoulder”. Within the past year, Meyer was appointed the CEO of Yahoo. Feminists across the country celebrated the appointment of a woman to such a high profile position in a male dominated field. Much to the disappointment of these feminists, Meyer has said a few times that she is not a feminist and has worked to dissociate herself from the movement. I have been tracking Meyer’s comments and movements, along with other women in the spotlight who reject the term “feminist”, with much chagrin.

How can these women disregard the way that feminism has fought for their right to be in such positions of power? Do they realize the example they are setting for younger women?

We need to stop calling it feminism, according to Rosin. The word has too many negative connotations, which accumulated as misogynists fought against the rise of feminism and were further perpetuated by (as Meyer said in the same interview) “militant” feminists. Rosin fails to propose a new term, though. I suspect this is because there is no word that can capture the movement in the way that ‘feminism’ can. The term has over one hundred years of fighting power behind it.

Egalitarianism may come in a close second to the term of feminism but it lacks the punch that feminism has. The term definitely goes hand in hand with feminism but, to me, it is the end goal. Some people are already egalitarians, which is wonderful. I have multiple male friends who call themselves feminists and treat me with complete equality. However, we are not in a cultural place where egalitarianism can replace feminism. Too much animosity towards women still exists.

As a feminist, I think women in my age group need to own the term. Each wave of feminism has made it mean something to them and I refuse to give up because it has accumulated negative connotations. We can change those. However, we need to work together. I often hear “I’m not a feminist but…” on Houghton’s campus. I hear things such as: “I’m not a feminist but I would never, ever let him treat me that way.” Or, “I’m not a feminist but I will wear leggings as pants because they’re super comfortable and it’s not my job to keep men from looking at my butt!” Or, “I’m not a feminist but I would love to have a career outside of the home and a husband who helps me with domestic chores.” Congratulations to anyone who has ever said such things, you are actually a feminist.

I understand why many people do not want to associate themselves with feminism. There certainly are militant feminists who are angry at the patriarchy and want to incessantly discuss this fact. However, they are not the majority. They simply have the loudest voices. If women who strive for equality would join together, we could rise above the militant feminists and work toward a connotation of feminism that is positive. We could make it a movement that people want to be a part of.

Am I being a bit idealistic? Of course I am! However, if we are going to fight the awful aspects of our culture, like the rape culture that has been so prominent in the past few weeks, women need to band together and promote feminism. Even if you do not feel oppressed, even if you are happy with your life, other women in the world need you to be a voice of reason. Men, you can take part as well. Just treat women with equality. That is all we want, in the end.

Categories
Opinions

Pros and Cons of Cultural Identity: Part 2 of 3

Courtesy of oregonstate.edu
Courtesy of oregonstate.edu

Last week marked the beginning of mine and Andre Nelson’s series on cultural identity, and Andre’s installment made the argument that cultural diversity may not necessarily be a positive thing, as he linked it to incidences of mass violence throughout history.

I find it easy to follow the connections Andre draws between clashes of culture and clashes of sword.  He said himself in a previous editorial on the roots of contention, “Hatred stems from a perceived fear of others’ differences and the dehumanization of that people group.”  We fear what we do not know, and most often what we do not know lies in the behaviors of those outside our culture.  As Andre points out, fear causes hatred, and hatred causes violence.  But, there are also very clear faults in Andre’s argument.  His descriptions of glorified secular societies “where cultural heritage is but a vague memory” and faith is completely disconnected bring to mind nothing but Orwellian novels with tragic endings.  In his article on hatred, Andre emphasized the need to “discover people as individuals… for then it becomes much more difficult to harbor hate.”  But, where is there room for the individual in his idealistic, semi-communist utopia?

I feel that I am stating the obvious here.  Those of you who read Andre’s article most likely drew the same conclusions I did, or at least felt some kind of discomfort at the thought of oppressing something as beautiful as cultural diversity, especially as it is particularly valued and celebrated here at Houghton College.  So rather than continuing to pick apart Andre’s stance, my goal is to simply present an alternative view of and, perhaps, solution for, the value of culture and its effect on violence.

Cultural identity has long been associated with geographical location.  Where we live affects how we live.  So for the purposes of this editorial, let references to environment stand in for references to culture, as I’ll be discussing the connections between land (which shapes culture) and violence.

In the article “Reverence for the Sacred Land: A Response to Endemic Violence in Central America,” relief worker Tobias Roberts provides a glimpse of what human relations would look like if more heed was given to environment.  He spent different parts of his life in two areas of South America: El Salvador and Guatemala.  In El Salvador, Roberts remembers that walking down a street was a dangerous act.  Violence was rampant, and seeing yet another body lying by the road was a common occurrence.  Then Roberts goes on to talk of life in Guatemala.  He recalls safety, freedom, and community, and he asserts that the defining characteristic was found in the people’s relationship to the land itself.  A year or so before, a company had attempted to force, using violence, the construction of a hydroelectric project on the land of a Guatemalan village.  The community formed a human wall and refused passage to the company.  This “connectedness to their land and their determination to defend that land,” Roberts insists, is “the single most effective barrier to the propagation of violence.”

This is a powerful example of how environment can inspire peace within a single culture.  But, as Andre points out, violence is between separate cultures.  Roberts provides a solution for this, too.  Back in El Salvador, where people refuse to leave their houses at night for fear of violence, Roberts’ mother-in-law organized a block party to celebrate the New Year.  The lights, the music, and the smell of food eventually drew people out of their houses, and what resulted was a peaceful mixing of two ordinarily warring cultures—that of the gang members and drug dealers, and the families of the community.  “It was a moment when the community became sacred again, when the fear associated with violence melted away and when the community collectively affirmed that this place is us,” describes Roberts.

What I find myself left with is the conviction that connection to the environment—and its by-product, culture—is far too beneficial to society to be so easily discredited and dismissed.  Perhaps culture, or differences in culture, does have some part in the world’s history of violence.  But, it is not the only cause, and certainly not a significant enough cause to warrant its complete elimination from society.  And, if you willl allow me to indulge in some idealism, I would say that the propagation of communal reverence for land as a whole could create exactly the kind of large-scale peace that Andre envisions in his article.

Satish Kumar, editor of Resurgence magazine, discusses the meaning behind the designation of sacred geography such as the Ganges River and Mount Kailash in India.  He makes the point that, although the people treat them as such, these are not specifically holy in and of themselves; the Ganges is not the only holy river, Kailash not the only holy mountain.  Rather they are representations, local reminders of the belief by the Hindu people that all water is sacred, that all mountains are sacred, that the face of the earth in its entirety is to be treated with care.  I value my culture and where I come from, and in doing so I recognize that all cultures, in their importance to other people, are valuable.  Environment fosters community, and community encourages the absence of violence and the mutual respect and understanding that culture, and consequently people, is to be treated with care.

 

Categories
Opinions

Pros and Cons of Cultural Identity: Part 1 of 3

Cultural diversity is a concept that it is valued by most progressives, and even the non-progressive and monocultural, though they may not value others’ cultural identities, would die before they allowed someone to strip them of their heritage. But is praising cultural diversity a healthy practice? Though I would like to think so, I wonder if it really is beneficial, especially if we wish to decrease the high levels of violence and hate in our societies.

Courtesy of sempresicilia.wordpress.com
Courtesy of sempresicilia.wordpress.com

I was born in Southern California, but set foot on three different continents before my first birthday. I have lived in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya, France, and Texas. I have traveled to approximately 15 different countries. I am the descendant of a survivor of one of the worst and most neglected genocides in history—that of the Armenians. Needless to say, when it comes to cultural diversity, I lack no experience. Yet through all this, I have not come out with a particularly passionate view of the plethora of cultures that inhabit our world, rather I have come to view them as a significant source of violence and hatred. Could it be that mankind would be more productive and peaceful were it not for all this diversity?

Fukuyama, a political and economic scientist, wrote a book titled The End of History in which he discusses the development of liberal democracy as being the “end point of mankind’s ideological evolution.” However, Fukuyama limits his idea to state ideology and claims that the shift into liberal democracy will only eliminate conflict between “post-historical” states. Could we then extend this concept to include secular globalism? After all, religion and cultural identities (which are really synonymous in the majority of the world) appear to supersede, in most cases, that of national identity.

Fukuyama bases his theory on observable historical trends. He is deeply influenced by Hegelian thought, stating, “Hegel was the first philosopher to speak the language of modern social science, insofar as man for him was the product of his concrete historical and social environment.” Much like Hegel, Fukuyama sees historical trends suggesting a progression in humankind, not necessarily towards a utopian-style society as perhaps Marx would, but rather, “a moment in which a final, rational form of society and state became victorious.” This is to say that despite there still being violent acts perpetrated by individuals, there will be no more large-scale cultural or ideological inspired acts of violence.

Similar to both of these thinkers, I would like to take a look at the historical development of cultures from around the world. The Armenians and the Turks are an obvious choice for me, given my heritage. My ancestors were slaughtered in the early 20th century, and to this day many Turks still deny that this genocide ever happened. Violence against the Armenians still residing in Turkey continues today, not to any genocidal proportions, but the hatred remains deeply rooted in the culture. The simple explanation is the same one that explains the never ending slaughters in the Balkans, and the incessant retributive attacks between the Palestinians and the Israelis–it is due to cultural and religious diversity.

On an individual level, a Catholic and a Muslim, for example, can have a peaceful and loving relationship. But, on a larger scale, if we wish to maintain our separate cultural identities, it seems unlikely that we can live in divided communities without developing hatred and violence. For thousands of years the Croats, Serbs, and Bosniaks have been slaughtering each other, for thousands of years the Jews and Arabs have despised each other, and for thousands of years the Turks and the Armenians have been at each other’s throats.

Where peace has begun to develop is within secularized, postmodern, Western societies. Could it be that as secularization settles in, as cultural identities are abandoned, and as we enter into not only a liberal democratic world but a secular and globalized world, that we will see peace, innovation and prosperity? It is in this environment that humankind seems to thrive together.

While I cringe at the thought of abandoning cultural diversity, as I do see beauty that has come out of various cultures, I would like to see peace develop in this world on a large scale. It seems as though the societies in which mass cultural violence has been near eradicated are secular and globalized societies, where cultural heritage is but a vague memory and faith is personal and disconnected from society as a whole. Is there any way we can practically achieve worldwide peace while maintaining cultural diversity?

Categories
Opinions

Theotokos: Bound to Christ Through Birth and Death

Approaching a text without some sort of cultural, intellectual, or interested bias is most likely an impossibility. However, I mean for this article’s presuppositions to be, for the most part, minimal. Being a Christian, and writing for a Christian audience, I will be making assumptions about Jesus Christ, namely that he is in fact the son of God, and that he does in fact embody the fullness of divinity. But beyond the hypothesis that the Gospels are true, my hope is to read the stories and make commonsensical determinations based upon what they say. Perhaps another way of putting the point is that I intend for this article to be primarily “Biblical.

Courtesy of www.sacred-destinations.com
Courtesy of www.sacred-destinations.com

Following this simple text-centered methodology, I wish to explore an often overlooked character in the Gospel stories. Or if not overlooked, a character who does not receive the attention that I believe she so rightly deserves. The character I am referring to is Mary, the mother of God herself. When I set aside what I would consider my “philosophical truths,” and read the gospels as a true account of God’s most intimate contact with the creation, I am struck with the feeling that Protestantism’s lack of attentiveness to the importance of Mary is something of a theological tragedy. The remainder of this article will be comprised of a few considerations that I find plausible, followed by what I take to be a couple of the necessitated conclusions of said considerations.

First, a few words about what we as Christians believe about the cosmic importance of Jesus Christ. Christianity’s distinctiveness is built upon the belief that Christ is the son of God. Jesus, though being fully human, is also fully divine. The extent to which God is the eternally transcendent creator, our “ground of being,” is contained with Jesus Christ completely and absolutely. Jesus is God.

But as we also believe, Christ, though fully divine, is inextricably bound to his humanity. And as the Gospels tell us, Jesus, or God, has one biological parent- Mary. Although I am a 22 year old male, about as far from being a mother as one can be, I would like to raise some reflections about what it means to be a mother. First, if Mary is the mother of Jesus, and Jesus is God, that means that God Himself (Him insofar as He manifested as a male) grew within the womb of Mary, was fed at the breast of Mary, and was coddled and cared for in all of the ways that a loving mother relates to her child. God was dependent upon Mary. Another fact is that if you ask most any mother, and I am sure some biologists and psychologists, they will tell you that the intimacy found within the relationship of mother and child is most likely the most intense intimacy found in human relations. If Mary is the mother of God, as is claimed in the Gospel narratives, than we are ascribed to the belief that Mary shared an intimate contact with the divine beyond that of any other. She is as spiritually connected to God as a mother is to the child of her womb.

Now let’s move to the Crucifixion, the event in which Jesus atoned for the sins of mankind. Jesus, through suffering on the Cross, carried out the single most historically significant event. Now let’s once again turn our attention to Mary. If you ask any truly loving parent they would tell you that they themselves would rather undergo a crucifixion than see their beloved child be crucified. I am not claiming that Mary suffered more than Jesus, because Jesus is God things are irregular, but one cannot ignore the immense suffering of Mary as Jesus was crucified. And because of her intimacy with the divine, being the divine’s mother, I simply cannot believe that her sufferings find no place within the eternal significance of the event of the crucifixion, as if they were some accidental by product. Mary was bound to Christ through his birth, and remained bound to his sufferings as he hung on the cross.

So taking into consideration what I have stated above, which as I have said, I find to be quite basic truths of the Gospel story, what does this mean about Mary? Well, I believe that first and foremost that we cannot treat Mary as if she relates to God and eternity as just another human being, such as Paul or Peter. Mary is the mother of God; she is intimately connected to Christ in a categorically different way, I mean just go ask a mom about it. After thinking about God having a loving mother, and what that really would mean for Mary, I cannot comprehend why consideration for Mary would rarely arise. I simply cannot believe that Mary is not in some way closer to God than any other human who has existed, she is God’s Mother! The fact that many theologians would deem Mariology as “unbiblical” is, to me, commonsensically wrong. Think about what it means to be a Mother, what it would mean to be God’s mother, and what that would mean for Mary’s place in the big picture.

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.