BLIND GUIDES V. OBAMACARE Michael Shirzadian CU Alumnus
When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away - Matthew 22:22
Part I: Christ/ian Anymore there’s only one reason I call myself a Christian—and it’s a characteristic of Christ, not his church. Because really, let’s face it, his church has dropped the ball (Nietzsche: there was only one Christian and you crucified him). Society perceives the church as intolerant; the academy perceives the church as ignorant. Like banks and bailouts, ignorance and intolerance go together. Four years of education at Cedarville University confirms the stereotype. When I was president of CU College Democrats, one participant at one of our sponsored coffee-talks argued at length that the US shouldn’t legalize gay marriage because the move would result in the inevitable destruction of capitalism (his name was David). Admittedly I’m a Marxist (and would welcome eagerly the destruction of capitalism), but through CU’s debate team I had a number of smart, conservative friends: hearing David’s analysis, they frowned; I literally saw their faces contort; David was undoing their efforts, proving true the stereotype.
Jesus might not be a liberal, but he’s definitely not a conservative. That’s why I call myself a Christian. What I like is Jesus’ radical deconstructive impulse. Of course I mean deconstructive in the Derridian sense; a bearded, English grad student studying in Boulder, CO inevitably would. Those instances in which Jesus confronts and outwits the establishment are those that keep me coming back. John 8, for instance. Or Matthew 22-23. Matthew 23 is especially compelling because Jesus foreshadows and warns against what will become the church’s biggest obstacle: not an external sin to be reckoned with (like hunger, or demons running around manically with pitchforks and bifurcated tails), but an internal vainglory, a belief not in Christ but in the self, in those human(ist) impulses for power, money, prestige, etc. Woe to you! Jesus says to these people, to these teachers of the law who use their guile and wit to preserve their interests, to maintain their power, at the expense of those they are tasked to lead, the broader masses of people yearning to know God. These sophistic Pharisees mask truth, suppress mercy. Their wit and cleverness in doing so earns Christ’s condemnation. You snakes! Christ says in verse 33. Brood of vipers! How can any of you escape damnation? This (radical, angry) condemnation in Matthew 23 is as political as it is theological; indeed, one key hermeneutical challenge for contemporary biblical scholars is to navigate the strange nexus between Hebraic politics and theology extant in Israel during the long period of the canon’s composition. What is clear is that politics and theology were indistinguishably intertwined both before and after the Exile. The Rabbis led the soul and the state. Against this context, passages like Luke 19:45-48 (the house of prayer made a den of thieves) or
CONSTITUENCIES OR CHANGE? “We aren’t looking for a faith that provides all the answers; we’re looking for one in which we are free to ask the questions.” Rachel Held Evans, Evolving in Monkey Town p. 204 Christian colleges and universities around the United States face a dilemma-one that will determine their futures (and for some, whether they’ll even have one). Here at Cedarville, we pride ourselves on our tagline, “Inspiring Greatness.” Our logo testifies to the fact that we are a “Christ-centered learning community,” and usually after our administration calls attention to these two aspirations, they rattle off the accolades of our departments, followed by a call for us to be “one of the leading Christian universities in the 21st century.” While Cedarville accomplishes many things with excellence, boiling under the surface are some disheartening issues I, as well as my friends from around the country,
Matthew 22:15-22 (give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s) make sense. Political and legal leaders are morally accountable for the particulars of their leadership. The crucial lesson one might extract from these hermeneutically difficult passages is that Christ reserves his harshest condemnation for immoral leaders, blind guides, those who use their (political, moral, legal) authority and cleverness to mislead the people.
Part II: Obamacare Besse Berry Cooper, 115, is a U.S. citizen and the oldest person on earth, so surely she has seen her fair share of immoral Supreme Court decisions. Born mere months after Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 (which upheld the constitutionality of state laws practicing segregation if such laws accommodated the hollow maxim separate but equal), Cooper has witnessed equally immoral decisions throughout our highest court’s history. One example is the oft-cited Korematsu v. United States (1944), which held that the federal government could lock thousands of U.S. citizens in concentration camps because of military necessity. A lesser know example (amid Legion, for they are many) is Buck v. Bell (1927), where Justice Holmes upheld forced sterilization of the mentally ill, writing with a chilling eloquence—he was more remembered for his guile and sophistry on the page than his critical mind—that “three generations of imbeciles are enough.” Cooper has also seen her fair share of judicial activism. A criticism often levied by conservative political and legal thinkers against liberal justices, examples might include oft-cited Roe v. Wade (1973), which found in the constitution a vaguely enumerated right to privacy, or Brown v. Board of Education (1954), in which Chief Justice Earl Warren’s Supreme Court maintained in a 9-0 decision that establishing separate public schools for blacks and whites is unconstitutional, thereby reversing the abysmal decision in Plessy. Conservative political and legal thinkers often cite the Warren Court as one of the most activist courts in our nation’s history (expand-
EVANGELICALS & MASCULINITY Daniel Sizemore CU Alumnus
American evangelical men face a strange double bind when it comes to masculinity. On one hand, they are called to eschew the broader culture’s image of men proving their worth through sexual promiscuity and collection of material wealth. However, walk into any evangelical bookstore and you will find numerous resources purporting to be the definitive guide on how to be a “real” man. Even those outside of the world of Evangelicalism have heard Mark Driscroll bragging about how his Jesus can beat up your Jesus in the Mixed Martial Arts ring. More recently, John Piper has stated that G-d means for Christianity and the church to be masculine. This undue elevation of masculinity within the Church both marginalizes women and forces men into a one size fits all way of living. There is nothing inherently wrong with a person adhering to the gender roles society prescribes to them because of their genetic makeup. By all means, men who enjoy tossing footballs in muddy fields and women who find contentment in baking cookies do not need to change their actions. The problem comes when these roles are unquestionably sanctified into a dividing line between those who fall into the category of a good Christian and those who are reprobate sinners. Cedarville is not immune to this phenomenon. Whether it be chapel speakers
2
Grant Miller & Kimberly Prijatel
notice and experience at our respective religiously-affiliated schools-- issues that seem to stem from one central conflict. A great tension is building. A tension between history vs. progress. A tension between faithfulness to the past vs. aggressively seizing the potential of the future. A tension between the old culture of faith and a new, blossoming culture of faith. Many of our Christian-school-attending comrades are frustrated by “the [insert name of his/her school here] Bubble...” (a sentiment surprisingly shared across school lines and geographical locations in the Christian community!) The sentiment bears witness to the deep desire of the 21st century, post-post-modern student: authentic living, coupled with a strong “action” component to her belief and faith. As students strive to explore exactly what this means, our colleges and universities work to accommodate, but there is a fundamental dissonance between the ideologies of the older generations running our schools and those (the
students and dedicated, critically-minded faculty and staff) who are seeking to maximize their time and effectiveness at such institutions. The underlying problem is the inevitable collapse of once previously assumed-solid foundations for faith and “good, Christian living.” For the majority of their respective histories, these schools have maintained an unbreakable Line with accepted, churchmandated theology and lifestyle. Such institutions have tailored meticulous constitutions with their rules and regulations around these precepts--after all, that is what “set them apart” from “secular schools.” At Cedarville, we see this manifest as the community covenant, a required document replete with explicit rules and a very specific checklist of theological beliefs their students must profess. Some parents sent their children to such institutions with the assurance they would not be taught doc-
3
urging the men in the audience to shout out their call to greatness (as opposed to the women’s call to domesticity?) because they happen to possess a Y chromosome, or weeks devoted to teaching students how to “man up,” the university has done its fair share of strengthening the connection between socially constructed gender roles and biological sex.
4
UNTITLED
ing 4th amendment rights, curtailing capital punishment, Legion others). What Cooper has not seen until now, however, despite her 115 years of life, is such an egregious marriage of immorality and judicial activism as that which would occur should the Roberts Court overturn the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), colloquially known as Obamacare, in the convoluted jamboree which our posterity, if they make it, will remember as National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012). In oral arguments taking place at the end of March, the Supreme Court considered argumentation concerning multiple facets of the admittedly long bill, focusing most specifically on the “individual mandate”, which requires most Americans to purchase health insurance by 2014 or to face a financial penalty. The move to remove this clause stems from an awkward series of slippery slope arguments. If the government c a n require citizens to buy health insurance, can’t it also require citizens to buy and eat broccoli? Can the government require citizens to enter a state of action from inaction? These are good questions for political and legal scholars looking to pioneer new territory in political or legal theory, but such hypothetical, almost childish scenarios are rarely entertained by the Supreme Court of the United States, whose very existence affirms the federal government’s ability to require citizens to do things (this is called legislation) and/or to enter from a phase of inactivity to activity, inaction to action (taxpaying, auto-insurance, seat-belts, Legion others). The frustration for the petitioners is an understandable one. Tea-Party conservatives, angry that PPACA honestly (read: per due process) moved through congress and found its way to Mr. Obama’s desk, filed a suit which lower courts shot down (obviously) until the suit could be appealed to the Supreme Court, where these Tea-Partiers enjoy a slight political majority. Expecting Roberts and Kennedy to side with the more conservative members Alito, Thomas and Scalia, these Tea-Party activists and their gnarly Georgetown law dogs hope for a 5-4 decision against the individual mandate, which attorneys for the petitioners (law dogs/Pharisees) argue would so significantly butcher PPACA that the entire bill should be thrown out as inoperable. This is, in essence, the argument of severability. What happens to the rest of PPACA if the individual mandate is struck down? The answer is clear:
ISRAEL AND PALESTINE Elizabeth Graff
Justice for two peoples It is a joke in the Middle East that the Jews and Palestinians compete for the title of biggest victim. The Jews put forth their suffering in the Holocaust. The Palestinians say that they were exiled from their ancestral homeland by European invaders, whom the Palestinians had done nothing to harm. Jewish grandmothers show the tattoos on their arms from Nazi death camps. Palestinian grandfathers cry over the key to their childhood homes in Jerusalem, knowing that they are dying and will never see their homeland again. When Christians hear the word “Israel,”
PPACA is utterly inoperable. I agree with the petitioners that to kill the individual mandate is to kill the bill, and here’s why: the original bill was a balancing act: large hospital chains agreed to relieve $155 billion in Medicare payments in exchange for the new opportunities these hospitals would enjoy once an additional 30 million citizens enter the market (via mandate, subsidy, tax and incentive programs offered to businesses, etc). The hospitals supported this exchange; U.S. citizens, through their elected officials, supported this exchange. Moody’s Investors Service, an influential credit-agency and think tank, outlines the specific dangers of striking down the individual mandate. “If the law is fully or partially repealed, for-prof it hospital operators’ costs of treating patients unable to pay their bills would rise, and would limit operators’ revenue growth and profit margins and constrain cash flow,” Moody’s Senior Credit Officer Dean Diaz said in a news release. If the individual mandate is struck down and severed from the bill, we have an absolutely inoperable health care industry in which hospitals literally flop, go belly-up, because they agreed to relieve billions of dollars of debt in exchange for revenue which five activist judges stripped from them in the eleventh hour (this scenario actualizes if Roberts and/or Kennedy agree/s that the individual mandate is unconstitutional but that this doesn’t kill the entire bill). If the Supreme Court sides with the petitioners entirely and renders all of PPACA unconstitutional, then we’ve got something far worse: a blatantly immoral court acting against the wishes of the American people via a judicial activism unseen by Besse Cooper and unparalleled even by the Warren Court.
Part III: Blind Guides But the most perplexing question might
be this one: where are the Christian activists? Regarding a radical bill which subsidizes
health insurance for millions of Americans who can’t otherwise afford it, why do most Christian participants in this monumental debate fall on the conservative side? Even if I were to concede, against logic and precedent, that an individual mandate is unconstitutional, why do most Christians side first with zealous jingoists calling for a return to the essence of our fixed and holy constitution, rather than with the progressives who have finally offered one possible, albeit imperfect, solution to the tragic health-related situations plaguing our hungry brothers and sisters in Springfield, or in Denver, or in Baltimore? How is it that those who claim to follow the God of Matthew 25:36-40 are more concerned with constitutionality than with offering real solutions to hurting people, to those who Christ called the least of these? How is it that those who follow the God who provisioned the year of Jubilee as respite for the poor can argue, now, that an entire bill designed to ‘heal the sick’ should be thrown out because of the slippery slopes which might accompany its individual mandate? Who are these people? Why do they believe these things? They’re commonplace Christians taking orders from the libertarian leaders at the top of the superstructure. These leaders are influential. They can convince middle-income and low-income people to voice libertarian outrage at Obamacare. They can convince simple-minded Christians that gay marriage will destroy capitalism. But who are they really? What’s their stake? They’re activist Supreme Court judges and clever Georgetown yuppies flashing iPads and iPhones and premium health insurance policies while they exercise their wit and sophistry to kill a good bill. They are the contemporary Pharisees, who pat themselves on the back and pretend like they’re doing good for their people. They’re rich libertarians whose children aren’t hungry, this being how they can enjoy the luxury of libertarianism. They convince their followers to detach from others, to let go of social responsibility. Their parents sent them to good schools. They are not global citizens. You would be hard pressed to locate their concern for the least of these. Like Justice Holmes, they mask their evil, selfishness and greed in political jargon and long, hypothetical legal briefs. They’re smart and cunning, like wolves in sheep’s clothing. They work to undo the will of the American people with their smartness. Obamacare vs. SCOTUS is only the most recent example. Today they have power. Today they’re first. One day later though, on that day when the first will be last, when every knee shall bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord, you might hear your angry God thunder in their closed ears, depart from me, you who are cursed ... for I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.
they either think of the Israel of the Bible or the Israel of today. Although these two concepts are related, the nation of King David and Jesus is remarkably different from the nation of the late David Ben-Gurion and the very much alive Binyamin Netanyahu. In this essay I hope to answer several questions: What’s the modern history of Israel and their relationship with Palestine? Which narratives do the Israelis and Palestinians cling to? Why does this matter to us, students at Cedarville? How can we help?
The Ventriloquist is an independently-run, independentlyfunded student publication at Cedarville University. We accept well-written articles from anyone in the Cedarville community and publish them in hope that the reader will give each piece fair consideration. Article ideas, questions and comments can be submitted to ventriloquistpaper@gmail.com
The V Staff Kimberly Prijatel Editor Zach Schneider Editor/Webmaster Cammy Sray John Michael Mumme David Sizemore Layout and Illustrations We are currently looking for staff members. Please email us if you’re interested.
This newspaper was made possible with the support of Campus Progress.
Campus Progress works to help young people—advocates, activists, journalists, artists—make their voices heard on issues that matter. Learn more at CampusProgress.org.
Jews could live. In 1917, his goal of seeing a Jewish state established was partly realized: a letter from British foreign secretary Arthur Balfour, to Lord Rothschild, showed support for the idea of the state.
What’s the modern history of Israel and their relationship with Palestine? Zionism is a secular movement that was started by the moderate and secular Hungarian-Austrian Jew Theodor Herzl in the late 19th century. Herzl had noticed the anti-Semitism in Europe and resolved to campaign for a Jewish state in which European
The British, however, made other commitments. During World War I, the Brits had promised the establishment of a large Arab homeland to the Hashemites, a Saudi Arabian tribe ruling Jordan. Instead of following through on their promise, though, Britain and France divided and kept Arab provinces; the League of Nations formalized British rule over the region through a document known as the British Mandate for Palestine. The Palestinians in the region had good relations with the native Palestinian Jews, but
3
CHANGE
trine, philosophy, or science which contradicted the beliefs instilled in them since they were infants. In some way, parents were able to rest-assured their children would remain in a protected buffer for another four years before launching off into the world. Yet, within the last several decades, the Christian church has undergone a dizzying amount of change in attitude and action (some would say “much too much!”, others would say “not nearly enough!”) Most young Christians conceptualize faith differently than the Religious Right: its ideologues, its Culture Wars. In the midst of these changes, the constituency of Christian individuals who have the capacity to donate large sums of money to the Institution remains largely older in age, a demographic which connotes (although is not limited to) a more conservative ideology. This widening gap between the students and the constituency leaves many Christian institutions to walk a painfully tenuous tightrope between two extremes: somehow, they must change enough rules to keep the students happy, yet they cannot change too much without facing the indignant ire of loyal contributors who will pronounce the “slippery slope of the institution” and promptly withdraw their support. Churches are changing dramatically and student perspectives are also changing dramatically on a plethora of issues. (Why then do such institutions continue to react to the criticisms of a shrinking constituency?) One instance in particular comes to mind: This summer, I had the privilege of working in our nation’s capital and spent time at a government official’s office--conversing on a range of topics from art to philosophy to theology. At one point, he leaned forward in his red, wing-backed chair, placed his hands on his chin, and uttered these words: Please explain something to me, Grant. I have been in this city for over twenty years and have never witnessed such a vexing phenomenon. Credible polls indicate that your Generation is the most pro-life Generation ever to live since such polling began.
Then, his tone changed to one of genuinely pained bewilderment: Yet on the other hand, you are also the most supportive age group for gay marriage! Can you please help me try to understand why this is?
He leaned back in his chair, crossed his legs, and awaited my answer. The evening sun cast him in a silhouette. I understood this seeming paradox perfectly well and responded with conviction and without hesitation, for to me, the answer was glaringly obvious: Sir, it is BECAUSE we are the
ISRAEL as more Zionist Jews fearing Europe’s antiSemitism arrived, they bought more land and competed with the native Palestinians for resources, causing tempers to flare. After an attempted partition of the land between the Palestinians and the Jews in 1948, the Brits bailed and the Jews declared an independent state of Israel. This was the end of the Israeli War for Independence, their dream realized: they had established a homeland for the Jewish people, a homeland created for a people who had suffered so much over the past 2,000 years. The people had a country at last, paid for with blood, treasure, and tears.
most pro-LIFE generation.
Traditionally, these two values are at extreme odds with one another within conservative, evangelical politics and faith. However, our generation is beginning to see the inconsistencies, incongruities, and downright nonsensical ways with which others contradict themselves or execute powerplays to remain in control of a conversation or “doctrinal statement.” Our generation is sensitive to the hegemonic political games, manipulation and hypocrisy our religion’s name has carried through the last 50 years. Schools that are facing the challenge of meeting the times will go one of two ways: They will either reconcile their inconsistencies and live as fully as possible with integrity and f or w a rd - g a z i n g Vision, OR,
T h e y will entrench themselves and write white papers on the “literal nature of Adam and Eve,” impose limits on types of churches staff can attend, and mandate other behaviors and beliefs in an effort to re-invigorate and reassure themselves of their Rightness, pressuring individuals to conform or fear removal from posts of leadership--or even employment. Many Cedarville students have heard our president passionately explain why we are not known as a “Christian university.” It is because “universities cannot be a Christian, only people can.” I applaud this distinction and respect the way in which Dr. Brown seeks to differentiate between the institution of Cedarville and the people of Cedarville. However, Cedarville falls into the same
But the land on which it was established was not “A land without a people” for “a people without a land” as the Zionist mantra claimed. Palestinian Christians, Muslims, and Druzes lived there. And for them, the establishment of Israel was Al Nakba - The Catastrophe. Before Al Nakba, there were 700,000 Palestinians living in what is now Israel proper. Most fled to surrounding nations, afraid for their lives; a scant 120,000 remained. Those that left became refugees, and 5,000,000 of their descendants remain refugees to this day. Many live in UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the
Near East) camps in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and the Palestin-
behavioral patterns as many of the other schools in capitulating to the constituency. As of late, there has been a renewed effort to crack down on differing theological positions ranging among justification, Omniscience, and perspectives on creation. The language of these white papers creates a hostile environment for questioning, journeying, and different opinions to be held with conviction, perhaps even taught; effectively severing them from the conversation. For instance, language in these circulating papers on the doctrinal statement (specifically dealing with creation) includes the following: “Since the establishment of the university’s current doctrinal statement until the present, the clearly understood meaning
of a r t icle four has included the commitment to the special creation of the first humans. The current Board of Trustees once more affirms that God, by a special act of creation, made Adam and Eve and that they did not share a common ancestry with primates. They consider all positions which endorse Darwinian evolution, or which deny the historicity of Adam and Eve to be incompatible with the Cedarville University Doctrinal Statement.” The language of this--and other--white papers circulating seems to be an effort to silence discussion. In this particular quote, we do not see room for questioning, no room for nuance or subtle difference, no room
ian territories. Those that remain face life as a minority in their own homeland, and their minority status makes them more vulnerable to poverty and discrimination.
To which narratives do the Israelis and Palestinians cling? The Jewish Diaspora, the Holocaust, Zionism, Israeli War for Inde-
and the pendence are the hardships of the Jewish narrative. Broken promises, exile, Al Nakba, deeds and keys to houses that have been demolished, and an intense nationalism are the hardship of the Pal-
for recent theological developments in our tradition--effectively, no space for authentic exploration. This is the aspect we find to be the most damaging: squelched diversity and forced homogeny. In response to these decrees, we must ask this question: If a “university cannot be Christian and only people can,” then why are individuals within the university allowed to issue such draconian statements on “approved theology” and mandate such beliefs? Even if one agrees with the tenants listed above in the white paper statement, the way in which it is communicated should be enough to cause widespread discomfort and/ or opposition from students and members of the faculty and staff. While we strive to live “in community” here at Cedarville, this does not mean we shouldn’t be allowed to disagree on issues of theology and faith. That, to us, is the beauty of community--the diversity of belief, opinions, standpoints, and thoughts which lead to rich discussion and the challenging and refining of such positions. Another issue our university faces is the incorporation of students into these--and other--ongoing conversations of policy, faith, and community. So often, I hear students lament the tightly partitioned way in which Cedarville operates: decisions on direction and theology are made by the administration and associated individuals while the students, who are either unaware of the conversations taking place or who are deliberately kept out of the loop, are left to bear the brunt of these decisions (sometimes without even knowing it). If, in fact, Cedarville is to be a true community, a much more symbiotic relationship must be fostered between the conversations taking place on the administrative level and what students are experiencing. Taking these things into consideration, schools which choose to take the second approach of the two listed above are in grave danger of slipping below the waves of progress and a global re-orientation, only to drown on their own attempts to preserve a much-vaunted Culture...and the ever-important Coffers. At the end of the day, a revealing question must be asked, “Are such schools truly Christcentered or constituency-centered?” If the answer is “constituency-centered,” the purpose and mission of these schools is in danger of being lost. Or, the respective Administrations have reconciled that what was once a heartfelt attempt at nurturing people into critically-minded thinkers has turned instead to primarily a business and productpeddling institution aimed at survival. Will Christian colleges and universities stand the transition into the new era? It’s too early to tell, but it does not look incredibly promising if schools continue on a “coffers & constituency-centered” trajectory.
estinian narrative. But these two narratives share something: victimization and a desire to return to an idealized homeland. Jews and Palestinians have both suffered injustice. But competing over who has suffered or who is suffering the most is pointless; it will not fix the underlying problems. What can help is the intentional effort of all involved to stop injustice in the present time and circumstances. As my friend Mary (daughter of a 1960s diplomat in Jerusalem) put it, “The security of one people (the Jews) should never take priority over another people’s (the Palestinians) need for justice.”
4
WHY I DIDN’T CLAP Josh Proemmel
On March 28, Jeff Struecker, hero of Black Hawk Down, spoke to about 3,000 people in chapel at Cedarville University. When he finished speaking and walked off stage, he received an emotional standing ovation. I didn’t take part in this ovation, and I think it’s important to explain why. Many of us grew up repeating the Pledge of Allegiance every day in school. To some of us, it was just 31 words that we said, even though we didn’t really understand what it meant. To others, it really was a pledge, a promise to live in honor of the United States of America. Until recently, I really hadn’t given much thought to the Pledge of Allegiance. However, the more I thought about it, the more it troubled me. I see two options: We say it in vain, and it doesn’t mean anything, which seems rather pointless; or we truly mean it when we say that we pledge allegiance to the flag. Neither of these seems like a very good option to me. With the first option, why would I waste my time saying something that I don’t really believe in? On the other hand, if I were to believe every word of the pledge, I would call it an idolatrous act. In Exodus 20:5, the third of the Ten Commandments is shown to us. It tells us to not bow down to nor serve any idols. While we aren’t literally bowing to the flag, it seems that the motive is still the same. Bowing or standing, we are pledging our lives to something other than God. Daniel 3 tells the story of three young men who were unwilling to bow to the idol built by King Nebuchadnezzar. They knew that if they did not bow, they would be thrown into a furnace and die, while burning to death. Still, they did not bow. When they were brought before the king, he gave them a second chance. Once again, they refused to bow. A lot of us grew up in church being taught that these three men were heroes for their faith in standing up to the king. What would these same church teachers say if they saw that I refused to pledge allegiance to the flag? Another consideration that kept me from standing that day in chapel is that I believe it goes against what Jesus lived and preached. Jesus said to love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and to love your neighbor as yourself. According to Jesus, the
ISRAEL Why does this matter to students at Cedarville? How can we help? I believe it to be a Christian duty to seek to end the injustices faced by an oppressed people group. As Christians, we must separate our image of Israel of the Bible from the modern Israel. They are not one and the same, even if there are some similarities. The political realities of Israel are more convoluted today than they were in the days of King Solomon. And, to be quite honest, the modern history of Israel must be considered more pertinent
MASCULINE
rest of the commandments simply build off of these two. Not only did Jesus tell us to love our neighbor, he told us to love our enemies. Regardless of whether that enemy is a Republican, Democrat, or member of al-Qaeda, we are called to love and share the gospel with that person. This is demonstrated in the well-known passage about turning the other cheek. If we understand Jesus’ words here, we see something much different than is commonly assumed. This is not a call to let someone hit you twice. Instead this forces the aggressor to look at you as an equal, a human created in the image of God. In Jesus’ time, the most common, disrespectful way of hitting someone was with a backhand across the face. Imagine someone backhanding you with their right hand. The blow would come to your right cheek. When you turn the other cheek, the person can no longer backhand you, because in Jesus’ time, the left hand was used in the bathroom, and was not to be used for hitting people. The only option for the person at this point is to punch you with a fist, which was a style of fighting reserved for equals, as opposed to the backhand, which was used on “inferiors.” I can’t speak for everyone, but in my mind, it is much harder to hit someone when I am forced to treat them as equal or superior to me. I can only hope that those in the military stop and think twice about the men, women and children at whom they are aiming guns, and realize that this person was created by God. Male or female, adult or child, terrorist or friend: Scripture clearly teaches that all are made in the image of God, and all are loved equally by God, regardless of actions that they may take to anger Him. We are not called to be vigilantes, carrying out justice when and how we see fit; rather, we are instructed by Christ to radically love our enemies, and trust God to mete out both justice and reward as He sees fit. An omnipotent God requires neither guns nor tanks, but only our obedience to His commands through rejection of violence and embracement of radical love. To clarify, I am not arguing that we show disrespect to those that serve in the military. I have good friends that are involved in the military, guys who I admire and with whom I will always stay in contact. Rather, I am suggesting that we treat the men and women of the military with the same amount of respect that we would give to anyone else on the street, and encourage all to deeply consider whether Christian participation in violence or the military is ever appropriate.
Oftentimes, those who want to support masculine gender roles point to the fact that Jesus was a carpenter and his encounter with the moneychangers at the temple as Biblical evidence for their definition of masculinity. This paints a very one sided portrait of Jesus’ character though. His earthly ministry was marked by a radical compassion and empathy, traits that during his time—and even in many areas of society today—were viewed as feminine characteristics. Jesus wept. He did not come in order to provide a norm of masculinity, but to provide a vision of perfected humanity in all aspects, encapsulating both the masculine and the feminine. Even the attribution of a purely masculine persona onto G-d is problematic. While Yahweh is traditionally referred to using male pronouns, G-d is pure spirit and thus transcends gender. Oftentimes, focus is put on the masculine metaphors of father, king and warrior in the Bible. However, G-d is also compared to a mother (Hosea 11:3-4, Isaiah 66:13, Psalm 131:2), a queen (Jeremiah 44:25) and a midwife (Psalm 22:9-10, Psalm 71:6, Isaiah 66:9).
to Israeli-Palestinian relations than ancient history. Christians must educate themselves about the modern history and present conditions in order to determine a fair and balanced view. If one acknowledges that the Palestinians have faced injustices at the hands of some Israelis, she is not saying all Jews all evil or that they haven’t faced severe injustice in the past. He is not anti-Semitic if he supports Palestinians (actually, it’s pro-Semitic, since Palestinians are Semitic too). Supporting Palestinians does not preclude support for Israel. Concern for Jews and Palestians is not a mutually exclusive choice. But both groups suffer if Israel does not grant Palestinians justice
and a state. For those interested in creating justice for the Palestinian people, I would stress again the importance of informing yourself about Palestinians and Israelis: their history, their culture, their religion, their goals, their news sources, etc. Then, I would suggest visiting Palestine and Israel. I lived in Jordan for a year, a country where half the population is of Palestinian descent. I visited both the West Bank and Israel and interacted with the populations in each area. I intend to go back to Israel and live among Israelis for a longer period of time. The conflict might seem very abstract or larger and life, but here are some practical ways by which we can encourage justice: • Acquaint yourself with Palestinian and Israeli mindsets and cultural customs.
Most importantly, both men and women exhibit the image of G-d. Most conservative interpreters of the creation story emphasize that in Genesis 1:27, G-d created humans as male and female. However, they gloss over the crucial fact that both male and female are primarily created in the image of G-d. Thus, we can find G-d’s image within women just as clearly as we can find it within men. If our view of G-d consists only of masculine qualities, then we miss half of G-d’s being. Instead of spending so much time and energy focusing on how to be good men or good women in evangelicalism, maybe we should instead focus on being good followers of Christ’s example regardless of whether we were born male, female or intersex. Yes, intersex; google that if it’s a new concept for you. Let us continue his work of breaking down the barriers between Jew and Gentile, the powerful and the oppressed, male and female. For in the end, the evidence of the Spirit’s work in our life is not based on how well we ascribe to cultural gender molds. It is demonstrated by the presence of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control in our everyday interactions.
THE FUNNY PAGES Dilbored
Mondays
Masculinity Redux
•
•
•
Read about JStreet, an advocacy organization that is pro-Israel and propeace (with the Palestinians) at the same time. Write to your congressperson and let them know about your view on the Israelis, the Palestinians, and the need for a future Palestinian state. Donate to UNRWA and help Palestinians living in poverty.