Are Politics Switching Again? Politics in the Trump Era

In the 1796 Presidential election, two political parties, the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans, squared off in the first-ever presidential election that involved what James Madison described as “temporary coalitions.” Madison and other senior leaders from the Revolution believed that political parties were only to serve the nation through some of the early controversial elections over its foundation. Little did they know how critical to our political structure the two-party system would become as PACs and Super PACs fuel political nominees with ever-increasing millions of dollars every election cycle. 

But how did we get from the Federalist vs. Democratic-Republican era to the Democrat vs. Republican era? Did the Federalist party just die out and the Democratic-Republican party split into two separate entities? In this article I’ll briefly look at how party lines have morphed over the past two-hundred years or so with a more detailed look at its influence on the modern era, and then argue that we are currently living in a time of political transition once more. 

The Federalists held a lot of influence in the big cities of the north, where people favored a large central government, and believed that the government could take on new roles going forward through a fluid interpretation of the Constitution. Meanwhile, the Democratic-Republicans believed the Federalists were aristocratic monarchists, and favored minimal government involvement, equality for all citizens (this referred to economic and social equality for all eligible citizens, which at this time excluded women and slaves), and a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

However, as the nation entered the Jacksonian era, the Democratic-Republicans began to fracture into smaller factions, which eventually led to the creation of the early form of the modern Democratic Party. In response, anti-Jackson politicians founded the roots of the modern Republican party, or at that time, the Whig party. 

Jackson’s Democrats believed in “manifest destiny” (militarism or expansionism), limited government authority, a hands-off approach to the economy, and expanded suffrage for white males (note: you had to hold land and pay taxes to vote at this point). 

On the other hand, the National Republicans, or Whigs, believed that it was the role of government to be involved with the economy, including in the construction of roads and railroads, and preserving cultural identities and heritage, which was in stark contrast to the “manifest destiny” and removal of Native Americans by the Jackson administration. 

By the time Abraham Lincoln was elected, the Whigs had taken on the name that we know of today, the Republican Party, and the Jacksonian Democrats maintained their nomenclature. Party lines began to shift following the Civil War as Democrats led by politicians such as William Jennings Bryan began to push the Democrats to a more progressive stance, and a movement for prohibition within the Republican party began to turn the Republicans to a more conservative stance.

This would ultimately culminate in the Republicans, under the leadership of Teddy Roosevelt, becoming much more globalist, and being the party of international interventionism. Meanwhile, the Democrats became less inclined to be involved globally, and chose to focus more on social issues within the nation such as womens’ suffrage and civil rights. 

When we look at the formation of the modern Democratic party, it might seem strange that President Obama tried to implement a “healthcare-for-all” plan, which definitely expanded the role of government. On the flip-side, early Republicans believed it was the duty of government to be involved in the economy, whereas now Republicans favor laissez-faire economics and hands off economic intervention. 

Democrats in the modern era have continuously pushed for an increase in the size of government and a flexible interpretation of the Constitution. Internationally, Democrats have tried time and time again to get troops out of overseas conflicts, while the Republicans were ever so eager to invest in war. Starting with Woodrow Wilson, Democratic presidents have done everything possible to avoid entrance into war until the last possible second. On the other side, Republicans such as Richard Nixon did not hesitate to get involved with proxy wars in the fight against communism. 

But what does this mean in the age of Trump? Last month, Trump announced his withdrawal of troops from Syria, which left the Kurds, who have historically had shaky support from the US, to fend for themselves. Trump reiterated numerous times the importance of “getting the boys home” and “ending the endless wars.” In opposition, multiple Democrats spoke out against Trump's actions to remove troops from the Middle East. In the most recent Democratic debate, former Vice-President Joe Biden said, “It has been the most shameful thing that any President has done in modern history in terms of foreign policy.” But what happened to the party that favored pulling out of the Middle East and criticizing the Republicans for their starting of a cycle of endless wars? 

If you haven’t been watching the Democratic debates, you may have already begun to see evidence of party switching. Since Obama’s eight years in office, the Democrats have clearly been liberalizing and pursuing a much more left-leaning agenda than before. Evidence of this can be found in who is leading in the Democratic polls. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Joe Biden have all risen to the top with their progressive/further left agendas, leaving moderates Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard trailing behind. 

While Republicans haven’t wholesale shifted their agenda, they have indeed splintered. Evidence of this can be found in Republican Rep. Joe Walsh’s announcement of a presidential ballot bid earlier in 2019. A month later, Rep. Mark Sanford, another Republican, also announced his White House bid. In an interview with NPR’s Michael Martin, Sanford said, “I think that we need to have a conversation and debate on what it means to be a Republican. Traditionally, the Republican Party stood for some level of financial conservatism. That seems to have been thrown out the window of late, as you see, for instance, with this latest debt deal, the president adding $2 trillion of additional debt to the national debt and a third of a trillion dollars in new spending over the next two years without even a debate.” Sanford represents a number of disenfranchised Republicans and believes that the current platforms of the party do not follow traditional lines. 

With Democrats shifting (no, not Schiffting) farther left, and Republicans losing their core beliefs, what will this mean for political lines in the future? Could a third party make an emergence? While this may seem doubtful, if the Democrats continue their leftward slide, moderate democrats will be left without a home, and this could lead to future political action. 


Well-Fed Theologians, Starved Theology

If you read the news much, or have friends who think they understand politics, you most likely have felt the hopelessness that this fallen world seems to cultivate effortlessly. Greta Thunberg sees our world as in a crisis that worsens with each sunrise: “Today, we use about 100 million barrels of oil every single day.”

O5 (1).jpg

But not all the news is terrible. One global trend of the 21st century (and 20th century) is the growth of Christianity in the Global South (the term used for Africa, Latin and South America, and Southeast Asia). Christians here in the West aren’t quite sure what to do. Church attendance in North America falls, but African and Chinese churches increase daily. 

Theologians too, try to figure out what to do with this massive demographic reversal. What will the world look like when the seminaries are in Princeton and Dallas but the Christians hail from Nairobi and Mumbai? While Western theologians (whether conservative, liberal, Calvinist, Arminian, etc.) try to claim African churches under their respective banners, they ignore what these African churches actually care about. 

Most African Christians are not interested so much in what exactly it means that Scripture is infallible. They don’t find a need for heated debates about predestination and free will. Their first theological priorities don’t have to do with credo vs. paedobaptism or losing one’s salvation or the existence of hell. In places where hunger and persecution are rampant, theologies of suffering and healing take precedence over theologies of predestination and Scriptural infallibility.

Recently deceased Kenyan theologian John Mbiti argued that “if theology has any contribution to make to the church … then it should be a healing contribution which accompanies the church wherever it is in its disfigurement and its martyrdom.” How much use is a theology for the poor coming from those who “can sit down in our library carrels and theologize comfortably?”

He points out that as Christianity grows in the Global South, the Western hubs of theology will become more and more useless as they address questions that will be largely irrelevant to the Christian farmer in central Africa, the sick child in an urban slum, or the illiterate local village preacher. After all, what good is an understanding of the Zwinglian or Lutheran view of communion when you can’t even count on reliable daily bread on your own table? 

I am not saying that the debates of Western theology are meaningless or unnecessary. Rather, we should recognize them for what they are: struggles unique to our context and not of utmost importance to all Christians of all places and times. 

Mbiti does not like the way that we in the West elevate our theological issues to be of primary importance in the theological world. His concern is that our seminaries and schools teach a theology that (particularly for those going out to Majority World contexts) produces theologians “bearing a watered-down theology.” He sees the current theological system as the theology of the rich and highly educated, when it ought to also be informed by poor, uneducated, or generally overlooked communities. 

Ultimately, Mbiti’s call is for us Westerners to be slow to speak and swift to listen. He says African churches have learned to theologize with us about our concerns and “would like you to theologize with us, and also about our concerns.”

This may not seem to mean very much to us here at Covenant. We don’t often come into contact with the theological concerns prevalent in Africa. We don’t see much of a need for theologies of suffering, ancestors, witchcraft, famine, demon-possession, or political liberation. But we should recognize these as important considerations to many brothers and sisters all across the world, and we must not laugh or consider these to be inferior concerns. 

The West has all too often looked down at the Global South as playing catch up to us. This arrogance has unfortunately found its way into the theological sphere as well. Recognizing that our theological issues are contextual should help us to grow in humility and willingness to listen to concerns of Christians around the world. As globalization continues, shutting our mouths and listening will become more and more essential.


Resolved: The Merits of Debate Club Far Exceed Any Drawbacks

Covenant College’s Debate Club is the hidden gem of our community. In addition to the numerous and unique practical skills it develops among its members, the club cultivates an appreciation for interacting with ideas that make us uncomfortable and challenge our thinking. It embodies the ideals of open-mindedness and education for the sake of simply learning, not just achieving high grades. In debate, you often find yourself forced to discuss and research an argument with which you do not agree. In taking the time to examine a subject from an unfamiliar, and sometimes unpleasant, perspective, you are better able to then approach that subject with clarity and understanding. This teaches the value of engaging in constructive and civil debate, recognizing that there is almost always something to be learned from those with whom we disagree.

Debate familiarizes its members with public speaking. At least once a week, members participate in a full round where they are allotted anywhere from 8 to 12 minutes to debate on a topic, usually relevant to current events, which they have had 15 minutes to research. This short preparation time, coupled with the length of speaking time, promotes two habits: quick and critical thinking, and consistent basic knowledge of current affairs. 

In a debate round, thinking on your feet becomes a necessity if you want your speech to be coherent and ordered. This is only accomplished through regular practice, which you receive plenty of as a member of the debate club; and it is certainly easier to form a comprehensive argument when you have a primitive understanding of the subject you are discussing. The promise of articulate speech encourages you to stay up-to-date with the news cycle so you aren’t caught off guard discussing a topic about which you know nothing. Both of these habits translate well into life after college, and they aren’t very common, especially among recent college grads. 

Debate also advances your ability to frame research into persuasive rhetoric. It is one thing to effectively research and analyze topics and situations and another thing to posit your thoughts in a convincing and eloquent manner. A mastery of both these skills together, however, is a rare and incredibly useful gift. The first evidence of such mastery is found in your college papers, and not just persuasive essays. Writing anything from a literary analysis to a historical research paper is made much easier with the proficiencies learned at debate. But these skills extend far beyond graduation; they stay with you throughout life and can be applied to many kinds of situations. There are too many people in the world today talking about things they know little about or, conversely, too many people unwilling to speak even though they may be one of the few more educated on an important subject. 

Beyond this, there are too many people in the world today perfectly content to remain in an echo chamber and never engage in constructive conversations. How are we to grow as a society if we are unwilling or unable to understand each other? Wouldn’t it be nice to be one of the people in the world who not only wants to communicate effectively with the rest of society (and all its variety of worldviews), but also can do so in an intelligent and perceptive way? These attributes are not imparted to you simply because you are a Christian attending a Christian university; they must be refined through discipline and practice. 

Some of the practical skills and habits most useful for being a faithful witness in a fractured world are those that are developed through the debate club. It isn’t just a fun group of people who get together to shout their personal beliefs at the opposition; rather, it is an organization that strives to impart to its members life skills and lessons that can be carried throughout the rest of their lives. This, of course, is all done while having wonderful fellowship and creating unforgettable memories, natural side effects of cultivating well-rounded and productive members of society. 

This year’s debate club president, Paige Hungar ’20, issued a strong message at the start of the debate season this semester: “If you want to grow and mature as a speaker, now is the time. Now is the time if you’re a senior, and you’re about to graduate. Now is the time if you’re a freshman, because things are not going to get less busy. I would strongly encourage you to figure out a way to get involved with debate while you’re at Covenant, and I am willing to promise you that you won’t regret it.”

I will add my voice to her advice. Take advantage of the short time you have here. Get involved in something. My personal experience strongly suggests the Debate Club, but anything is far better than nothing. The unique opportunities Covenant provides to learn and grow don’t really exist beyond college, and, in addition to everything Hungar has said, I’m willing to promise you that you will regret not being more involved. 


Do Christians have a Duty to Vote?

Nowhere in the Bible does it say to vote, but this makes sense in the historical context. There was no democracy; there were kings, emperors, and governors. 

That being said, Christians in the United States should vote because they have the ability to. 

Political parties are a human creation and thus are flawed. Therefore, no political party is going to be perfect, and the morals and values of all parties are continually changing. It should also be noted that voting for candidates of a particular political party just because they are of that party is not a good method. 

Many people live in ignorance and do not research candidates, but they still vote for those within a preferred party during local elections. In this case, do not even bother voting. You are doing a disservice to yourself by being politically uninformed, and you are doing an injustice to others because you may actually be voting for a candidate who is a bad choice. 

Voting for someone means you believe their values match well enough with your own. Just because a candidate falls under the Republican or Democrat label does not mean every single movement or objective they stand for is going to align with your own. 

Let’s stop the stigma that Democrats or Republicans are bad. Let’s recognize that political parties are flawed and that all candidates are flawed—none of them will be perfect. Let’s dedicate ourselves to voting for people who are not bullies, who present themselves respectfully, who challenge typical conservative evangelical belief systems in a good way. Let’s remember that the only true “bad guy” is Satan. 

Satan undoubtedly loves the strife that comes from political polarization. We are allowing politics to rule this country. If we let Jesus rule our hearts, and if we actually pray for our leaders, and participate in helping others as much as possible because of our love for Christ, we would really improve this country and the world at large. Voting is a benefit of living in a democracy, and Christians should participate.


Focusing on Christ in Scriptures

Over the years, I have come to see a troubling trend in Christian circles. We in our fallen flesh continuously forget where our true focus when reading Scripture should lie. 

We often trade that which has made us redeemed for that which condemns us. We embrace a lesser way of understanding Scripture. Therefore, as fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, let us grow as a family with better attention to what our heavenly Father wants us to pay attention to. My challenge both to myself and to others is to begin to further develop our minds and recognize what that truly is.

Since the beginning of our shared faith, as evident throughout Paul’s writings to the churches, we have continuously seen those who wish to return to a lesser understanding of the Word of God. Never-ending departure occurs again and again and again. 

We keep trading the redemptive freedom in Christ to go back to being a slave to the law. We keep making ourselves prisoners and throwing ourselves against a spiked wall, much like those in Super Mario Bros. We are just jumping along, and then suddenly we see a nice little prize and jump into an unending abyss of despair and probably spikes, resulting in the catastrophic ‘game over.’

Similarly, we forget that we are no longer under the law, and, for some inexplicable reason, we feel compelled to search the Scriptures and listen to countless sermons on how we can live better, which ends up making much of our faith into that of pagan motivational garbage. 

We as broken people saved by a loving God are no longer striving to make ourselves better. We were dead, lifeless, Super Mario Game Over with no restarts. God revealed himself to us through his promise in Christ. Galatians 3:25-26 says, “Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law. You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.” 

Thus, we no longer have to fear that we are going to hell or are lesser because we are bad people. God has got that covered with the precious blood of the perfect lamb. 

Again going back, the trend has been in many instances to look for how we can apply Scriptures to our lives, which leads to our continuous struggle with practical theology. We look to see how we can get stuff from the Bible and apply it to our own day and age, and frankly, I have never been more at the bottom and stagnant in my spiritual growth than when I have forgotten how to read and interpret the Scripture. 

Scripture points to Christ at every turn and on every page. It is a redemptive historical narrative that shows how God has chosen a depraved people who desert him at every hardship and yet in his great love saves them and gives them eternal salvation and rest. 

God made us fellow heirs of his own kingdom along with Christ. We went from complete death to being made members of the royal family. That is the power of Christ in you and me, and we see the testament to this power throughout the Scripture. 

The Scripture does contain truth about how we should live and what the laws are to follow, but if we do not put Christ at the center of our interpretation, we miss the point. We fall back into the hole of our own unworthiness. 

James 2:10 says, “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.” Scripture should not be merely used to state how we should view one particular subject; instead, it should be the fire that drives you every day to see how Christ has loved us so much despite our inability to do anything right. 

God brought the Israelites out of Egypt and is continuing to bring his people into the ultimate rest through the death and resurrection of Christ. When we try to solely live by the law, remember the real focus, as stated in Exodus 13:8: “On that day tell your son, ‘I do this because of what the Lord did for me when I came out of Egypt.’” 

We are the children of the promise who are now more children of Abraham than many of those who complained against God when he provided for them in the desert will ever be. We were brought out of the land of Egypt, out of the darkness of our sin. This is my testimony and this also is yours. Scripture proclaims to us the story of our salvation, and thus, we should not be overcome with the practical interpretation of how we need to behave. Scripture applies to our lives already as the story of our death and resurrection with Jesus on the cross and from the grave.


Is the Covenant Core Too Western?

I should start by saying that I am not just giving a random opinion; rather, I am responding to a particular question. The question is, “Does Covenant's core curriculum elevate Western culture and thought to a problematic degree?”

Before the question is even asked, it is important that we understand the purpose of our core curriculum. Covenant College is a liberal arts college; as such, the college offers a broad range of perspectives to equip its students so that they can engage with a world that is filled with diverse opinions, beliefs, and genuine insights. This is what our core is supposed to facilitate.

Moving on from that to the actual question. I assume this question is aimed mostly at the two CHOW classes that are required. The college requires these courses because we live in a Western country, and after graduation, the majority of us will continue to live in America. America did not occur without a historical connection to certain ideas and practices. CHOW is designed to learn about, and engage with, the history of ideas that have shaped our nation. CHOW functions as a course that reveals to us the opinions and beliefs that underpin the culture that we move and have our being in.

Due to this, I do not believe our core elevates Western culture to a problematic degree. The class does not exist to convince us that Western heritage is correct. We read Marx, Freud, Kant, Plato, and some Catholic stuff. The college does not subscribe to Marxist policies, Freudian anthropology, Kantian ethics, Platonic metaphysics, or Catholic doctrine. The authors are taught because these are philosophies that have shaped Western culture.

Now here’s the real issue: these philosophies, for good or ill, have had a major influence on most of us. Christianity has been shaped by Plato in problematic ways; many of us believe that our economic position has the greatest influence over our happiness and even our morality; we have suffered the fallout of Kant’s idea that objects, and consequently reality itself, can never be fully known, etc. 

How are we ever to cast off the erroneous ideas of the West if we are never told about them? How are we to engage with neighbors who hold these assumptions if we are left ignorant of the assumptions? How are we to help the American church when it buys into godless doctrines by passive assimilation to Western culture if we are ignorant of the ideas?

We are like the proverbial fish—it doesn’t know it is wet because its entire life was lived out in water. Most of us in the West have been raised in a society that has embedded our thinking with Western assumptions: radical individualism, a strict divide between the spiritual and material, an elevation of mathematics and scientific knowledge over religious and spiritual claims, a derivation of morality from individual rights and personal happiness, etc.

CHOW is an opportunity, not a guarantee, for a student to engage with and step outside of Western ideas and see them for what they are: the inventions of men and women. There may be common grace insights, but these are ideas articulated and propagated by fallible, finite, and fallen individuals. Until we carefully examine the origins our society’s ideas, we are unable to step outside of them and are doomed to believe they are the only reasonable description of reality.

That brings us to the real issue, the responsibility of the student. I have been in CHOW study groups enough to know that students usually only care to think about the ideas enough to answer exam questions. We as students must accept the responsibility to think, pray, and discuss ideas in an honest pursuit of truth if we are to escape from the pitfalls of any cultural ideas. Trust me, every culture has its errors.


Should Women take the Man's Last Name in Marriage

When I was in middle school, I was like every other middle school girl. Any time you had a crush on a guy, you would put his last name with your first name. It was silly, playful, and very middle-school-girl-esque. Now, as I have gotten older, this middle school practice shifts closer to reality for many friends around me.

I began to question what aspects of that practice were biblically right versus what the culture has simply trained us to do. How much of taking a man’s last name is biblical? How much of it is cultural? 

A woman took a man’s last name in European society to keep land ownership simple. Surnames come from the job you had. For example, if you were a potter then your last name would be Potter. You would then be from the family of potters. Women took a man's last name because women could not own property at the time. She would take a man’s last name to tell others what family she belonged to and who was going to take care of her.

In some Native American tribes and some Hispanic cultures, however, they do not follow the same tradition. In many of these cultures, a woman keeps her last name, the names are combined, or the line is continued on maternally. 

The question is—is this biblical? Is it something God has called us to do, does it at least represent how God has designed marriage, or is this more of a cultural choice? In the Bible, there is a sense of headship in marriage (Ephesians 5:23,1 Corinthians 11:3,1 Corinthians 11:8-9, etc) and by taking a man’s last name some would argue this is a form of headship and biblical submission. But doesn’t Genesis 2:24 also say “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh”? If a man is leaving his father and mother and unite to his wife, wouldn’t that indicate that he should be giving up his last name as a symbol of that? And if a man is to love his wife as Christ loves the church with a sacrificial love (Ephesians 5:23), is this maybe something the man should do for his wife as a way of sacrificially loving her?

This is not about power in a marriage or feminism, but about the fact that a name has meaning. I am proud to be a Florey. I love my family and love being called a Florey. It is a privilege and an honor, but beyond  that, my last name is in some ways far more of my identity than my first name. Many of you know me by my nickname: JFlo. I am JFlo because my first name is Jessica and my last name is Florey. Many people actually think my first name is Jennifer, and it easily could be, from my nickname. But if I had a different last name, I would never be JFlo.  

All of these things point to the fact that marriage is hard. It is a life change and a constant practice of giving, sacrificing, and learning to die to your own desires. And this lifetime of sacrifice maybe even starts with possibly giving up one’s last name. 

But why am I, as a woman, the one who has to wrestle through this identity change? It seems as if men (I am not a married man, so I could easily be wrong) do not have to go through the same identity struggle when they first get married. 

I end in what I hope is humility. I do not think anyone is sinning if they do or do not take their husband's last name in marriage. There are some women I know who see that as a beautiful gift to their husband, and I think that is a sweet, heart-felt sentiment. All I wish to do is to open up the discussion and maybe even bring in the reminder that, as much as we at Covenant like to idealize what marriage will be, marriage can be hard, sacrificial, and a fight to love as well as sweet and a representation of God’s love.   


Hot Take on Film Remakes

O2 (1).jpg

I am not great with probability problems, but I do know this: if I were to go to the movies today, there's a 100% chance there'd be a remake playing. It's not a surprising conclusion. From week to week, numerous remakes of older movies crowd the box office. Within the past five years or so, the production rate of remakes has hit a sharp increase that continues to skyrocket. 

Why is this? Can't studios come up with their own ideas anymore? To an outside observer, it might seem that the big studios have suddenly lost all their creative thinkers, but, in truth, a far more grievous factor is sucking the life out of the film industry. Most big studios today are caught up in a get-rich-quick routine and, in their haste to produce entertainment in bulk as cheaply as possible, turn to remakes and sequels to bear the brunt of their bread-winning.

Remakes in themselves aren't a bad thing. In fact, there have been some really great ones. Take, for example, John Carpenter’s “The Thing” (1982; a re-envisioning of 1951’s “The Thing From Another World”) or, for another, the Coen Brothers’ “True Grit” (2010; based off the original 1969 western starring John Wayne). The recent remakes of Stephen King’s “IT” miniseries (2017 and 2019, respectively; the original premiered in 1990) have also seen mild success. 

But lately such films have taken a nose-dive in quality. Most remakes cranked out of the Hollywood meat-grinder are cheap, watered-down imitations of what came before. Take, for example, Disney’s “The Lion King” (2019)—the ninth remake in a recent strain of live-action films that started six years back with “Maleficent.”

No doubt you’ve noticed that Disney in particular puts out a lot of remakes with a lot of mediocre CGI. Bigger studios happen to love CGI because it is faster (and, in most cases, cheaper) than practical effects (practical effects being the use of tangible props and technology such as elaborate costumes, pyrotechnics, prosthetics, animatronics, etc.). 

Though CGI is not the enemy, cheap stakes and a lack of heart going into production certainly are. In this fashion, Disney and other studios churn out cheaper films at a fast clip. This rushed production practice shows through in the distinct lack of care and quality. Often these remakes have no real depth or heart to them. They follow a formula, hitting all the points of the predecessor while tacking on one or two loosely-formed sub-plots to create the illusion of originality. And in this practice, the soul of the original is lost.

As I said, remakes in themselves are fine—even great; but we should not stand for only halfway-decent fodder. In the past, Walt Disney Studios brought us many an animated classic such as “Bambi” (1942), “Sleeping Beauty” (1959), and, of course, “The Lion King” (1994). But as both consumers and creators in our own right, we should demand quality over bland, reworked classics sweetened with a pinch of sugary, manipulating nostalgia.

In a capitalist society, money talks. I won't be paying good money to support any more cheap remakes, and neither should you. If Disney and other studios find that remakes make good money, they'll continue to crank them out faster and cheaper than ever before. And we shouldn't stand for that. So be responsible consumers—give due attention to what critics say about remakes. If it’s trash, keep your cash.


The Legacy of 9/11

O3 (1).jpg

As we recently passed the anniversary of September 11th, 2001, Covenant held a little memorial for the 9/11 attacks in NY, PA, and Washington D.C. As the day passed, I began to think through the many years we have commemorated it and all that we have done in school over the years to recognize what happened.

When I was younger I always had the question: Why is it important to commemorate it every single year? There is no doubt that this was a sad event; great bravery and sacrifice were shown by many that day, but there are many events in our history and the world that can claim those characteristics. There are many events in our history which can be counted just as tragic (e.g. the Holocaust, the near eradication of the Native American population due to European exploration, the Triangle Shirtwaist Company factory fire, the anniversary of the Dred Scott case or murdering of Emmitt Till, Hurricane Katrina, etc.).

Growing up, it always seemed so strange to me that people so vividly remember where they were and what they were doing when the twin towers were attacked. Yet terrorist attacks occur regularly across the world. Why is this event so much more significant than the rest?

Because 9/11 changed everything.

September 11th, 2001 transformed our society and changed the mindsets of Americans. I have no memory of a time when airport security was not the way it is now—or even security in many other places for that matter. Now you have to get to the airport at least 2 hours before a flight just to get through security; clear purses and bags are required at almost all games, concerts, or other major events; security and metal detectors are at almost any event with a fair amount of people. The USA Patriot Act that came out of the attack greatly ramped up border security, created even more offices focused on the security of the nation, and surveillance from the government skyrocketed. Gas prices shot up and pushed the United States into fracking and still have not quite recovered to pre-2001 prices. It transformed our society to target and be fearful of those from the Middle East.

Before 9/11, the United States felt invincible. Yes, the United States has lost in battles and wars, but that all happened on the terrain of other countries. September 11, 2001 was life-changing since the United States had not been continentally attacked since the War of 1812. I am excluding Pearl Harbor since Hawaii was only a territory at the time and it is not continental. As the first attack was broadcast, everyone thought it was only an accident. But as Americans were watching the first Twin Tower burn, they observed with their own eyes on TV a second plane crash into the other. It was then that it hit each person--this was no accident, but a direct attack.

The attack not only led the United States into multiple major wars, but prompted the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. It changed people's mindsets from feeling secure to feeling in peril and made Americans question their own safety in the United States. It even felt like a direct jab at the United States economy, with one attack taking place at the World Trade Center—a bustling, high-functioning metropolitan area where the New York Stock Exchange is located.

All of these ideas added up to what felt like a direct attack not only on Americans but also American society. People vividly remember what they were doing on 9/11 because it was a traumatic, history-making event—not just for themselves, but for the country.


The Practice of Silence

In his song, “I Wanna Talk About Me,” Toby Keith addresses a lover or a friend, reflecting on the nature of their conversations: “We talk about your dreams and we talk about your schemes / Your high school team and your moisturizer cream / We talk about your nanna up in Muncie, Indiana / We talk about your grandma down in Alabama.” 

Although the speaker admits that he often enjoys talking about his friend, by the end of the song he is fed up with all their egocentric talking: “You you you you you you you you you you you you you / I wanna talk about me.” I am sure we could all identify someone in our lives who resembles the ‘you’ in this song, and most of us have probably found ourselves wanting to interrupt and yell out, “I wanna talk about me!” 

However, I think Keith’s song has more to offer than just a collective chuckle at those whom we perceive as talking about themselves too much. It seems clear that the ‘you’ isn’t the only one who really just wants to talk about his/herself. The song essentially progresses from ‘you you you you’ to ‘me me me me,’ which, I think, is a pretty good summing up of most of our conversations with others. Even when we’re ‘listening’ (i.e. allowing the other person to speak) we can’t help but plan out what we are going to say next and how we are going to relate what they have said to ourselves. Why do we so often give concurrent monologues to each other and call them ‘conversations?’ 

Another thing we can learn from “I Wanna Talk About Me” is that we long to be seen and heard by others. We long for people, especially those we care about, to acknowledge our existence and our value, which we sometimes fear won’t happen unless we throw pieces of ourselves out in conversation. 

Simply put, one important reason we tend to talk about ourselves is because we want people to know us—or a version of us—and approve. It’s not as if the speaker at the end of Toby Keith’s song feels like he should talk about himself for the sake of a well-balanced conversation; he longs for what he thinks, likes, knows, wants, and sees to be heard and deemed worthy. 

I think we can see our daily conversations as a sort of oft-neglected opportunity to love and serve. And we all know how this is done. When we truly listen to others instead of emphasizing our own importance, we show the people around us that they exist and matter. But we are so bad at this. 

One common assumption about listening is that it is synonymous with question-asking. We love questions because they continue conversations by avoiding awkward silences and quickly move us through our checklist of concepts necessary for understanding a person. These aren’t always bad things, but they too often create a guise of “listening” that functions primarily as self-service. That’s not listening. Additionally, question-asking inherently guides the conversation where the question-asker wants it to go, potentially ignoring the object of the listening altogether. 

In light of this, I’d like to advocate for the practice of silence. And I mean actual silence: not talking when you could be talking. Some of us do this often (and there might be a seperate piece on speaking and speaking loudly) but I think the majority of us struggle to be silent. 

Silence is so awkward and so unneeded, we tell ourselves. What is the purpose of silence? Well, we have already established that we love to talk about ourselves and that we long for the affirmation that comes with being heard—these are good things. So, when we practice silence, we have the opportunity to give these things to others. Think of it as giving up your right to the conversation; it doesn’t belong to you anymore. 

This conversation now belongs to the person you are looking at. Your voice doesn’t need to be heard because you have given up that right for the purpose of service and love. Try it sometime: put your phone away, sit or stand near someone, be with them, don’t say anything, avoid temptations to ask questions, hear them, see them, be with them. Be silent.


Net-Zero Emissions is not a Pipe Dream

Energy is hot right now (pun intended). Climate activists cast a vision of the US providing clean, dependable energy to all of its citizens, while also respecting the people groups who have historically been neglected or exploited for energy sources. Most importantly, proposed energy legislation (mainly the Green New Deal) mandates reaching net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, with emissions peaking in 2030 at the latest. But what does “net-zero carbon emissions” mean, and is it reasonable to set such an ambitious goal?

Carbon neutrality requires transition away from energy sources that produce greenhouse gas pollutants (gases that trap heat from the sun and are thus responsible for the earth’s warming). Instead, carbon neutrality demands a move toward sources that either remove the same amount of gasses they produce, like biofuels, or that generate energy without producing carbon pollutants, like renewables and nuclear energy. 

Can renewables carry the weight of our energy needs? As of 2018 in the U.S, about 11% of energy demand is met by renewable energy, with only 8% of that 11% coming from solar panels, 22% coming from wind farms, and the rest from other renewable energy sources like hydroelectric and geothermal plants. Nine U.S. states and territories (including Puerto Rico) have set clean energy goals that require 100% clean energy production within the next 30 years. 

The renewable sector must rapidly expand to supply the energy demanded by consumers. Government subsidization of solar panels and battery storage systems in the form of investment tax credits encourages activity in these sectors. The pace of ongoing innovation in renewables and battery storage is astounding.

There are a lot of worries associated with renewable energy. For example, there is skepticism about whether solar panels will last long enough to be worth their investment. Many also fear that the panels will be obsolete in 20 years and need to be thrown out, creating astronomic amounts of plastic waste. While well intentioned, most of these worries are born from a lack of complete information. 

While panels will eventually cease to work and may one day contribute to waste, the average solar panel pays for itself within eight years, and most solar contracts are set for 20-25 years of generation. 

Degradation (the amount of energy generation capability a solar panel loses per year) is at about .8% for an average panel; after 20 years, generation would still be at over 80% of the original energy output of the solar panel. It is worth adding that any kind of energy generation plant will face degradation and need replaced parts, but—unlike solar energy—may also contribute carbon emissions in the meantime and, according to some recent studies, may not be as cost effective as solar plants.

The purpose of this article is not to champion solar energy, but to lend credibility to the desire for clean energy. Not all concerns about renewable energy are unfounded—only most. One well-founded criticism is that renewables lack reliability. What if the sun doesn’t shine brightly enough at times? What if the wind doesn’t blow and the rivers don’t flow? These are important questions.

Even within the constraints of net-zero carbon energy, there is room for diversification. There are many kinds of energy sources, such as biofuels and nuclear energy, that provide reliability, although at the cost of other waste externalities. There are also emergent technologies like battery storage that will maximize the efficiency of renewables. Increasing energy efficiency for the consumer will also contribute to the effectiveness of clean generation in meeting energy demand. 

If you advocate for clean energy, you are not just a dreamer. If you believe that we can power our cars and houses with the sun and wind, you are not naïve. While there are still complications like sourcing materials, the solutions are there. Concern for climate should be rooted in concern for how we treat each other—particularly the marginalized, who will be most affected and least able to escape the effects of a changing climate. All it takes is devoting less attention (and funding) to why we can’t and more to how we will.


Why Special Needs Ministry is Crucial

Before I began high school, my family started at a new church. We have loved this church for many reasons, but I think my favorite thing about it is the focus on ministry for people with special needs. Even as a sophomore in college now, I miss my church and the way it loves people so well. 

I had never encountered a church with this kind of focus, and if I’m being totally honest, caring for those with special needs just wasn’t on my radar. Little did I know, my entire viewpoint would change over the course of high school.

My family began participating in our church’s ministry for people with special needs pretty early on. I was reluctant, intimidated, and nervous about spending time with people who weren’t like me. It took a while for this attitude to fade, but the Lord began to work on my heart as I continued to volunteer for Special Saturdays and Special VBS.

Special Saturdays are mornings once every month where our church members volunteer to serve children with special needs and their families. Volunteers run stations like games, crafts, and Bible/music time, or they buddy up with one of the children to walk them through the morning’s activities. Special VBS is basically a week of Special Saturdays.

The parents can use this time to run any errands they need to run, and it gives them a chance to have a morning off from being full-time caregivers. These parents sacrifice so much to care for their children, and this is a way to serve them and give them a chance to recharge. 

By spending time with these children and their families, I grew to see God’s image and goodness reflected in the diversity around me. I began to see the beauty in the simplicity of the Gospel as I watched the kids understand it better than I ever did. These kids have such a beautiful faith to witness, despite the fact that their lives are different from and more difficult than mine in many ways. 

We talked a lot about using “person first language,” which basically means that we say “the boy with autism” as opposed to “the autistic boy” because a child’s disability or special need is never their whole identity. If this hadn’t been pointed out to me, I never would have been aware of the small ways that we can give dignity to those around us.

Some of the kids I worked with were non-verbal, except when we sang. Then they got super excited and started making lots of noise. While it’s not words, and it’s not language I can understand, this is how these kids praise the Lord. It brings a smile to my face just thinking about it. 

This experience has taught me that although we may have different abilities, everyone is capable of praising the Lord in their own way. He is pleased when non-verbal children sing, he is pleased when children in wheelchairs dance, and he is pleased when I sing and dance too. 

Although I started begrudgingly and with an unenthusiastic heart, the ministry for those with special needs at my church is one of the things I miss the most about home. Time with these kids and their siblings is good for all of our souls, and the amount of joy is overwhelming. 

I would like to encourage anyone reading this to get involved in a ministry for folks with special needs, or even just to try to be more aware of the people around you in everyday life. This ministry taught me how to value the contributions of others in a totally new way. I have a newfound compassion and a new appreciation for the diverse image of God in those around me. These kids and this ministry have blessed me more than they could ever know, and I love them with all my heart. 


Why Should I Care That There are No Women on the Board?

Last summer at General Assembly, the overture to have non-ordained persons (i.e., women) on the permanent committees and boards of the agencies of the PCA was overruled. This past summer, the same overture was issued, but it encountered the same response: only ordained persons (men) are allowed on the permanent committees and boards of the agencies of the PCA. 

The reasoning behind this, simplified, is that to have non-ordained persons would give them ruling authority, which is considered in the PCA tradition to be unbiblical, according to The Aquila Report.

Last summer, there was quite an uproar among the faculty, staff, and students of Covenant College at the decision, and numerous churches—particularly those that were members of the presbyteries putting forth the overture—were also disheartened. 

After the overture was met with the same response this summer, however, there didn’t seem to be as vocal of a reaction from the Covenant community. In one sense, it feels like this decision happened in another world far away, made by people we don’t know, and therefore it doesn’t affect us. After all, we’ve gotten along so far without women on these permanent committees and boards. Why, then, should these decisions matter to us, the students of Covenant College? 

In light of this question, I think it’s important to remember that our experience at Covenant is not the same as for the PCA as a whole. I think we forget that the things we experience here at Covenant to make the voices of the marginalized, the forgotten, and the ignored heard is not prioritized everywhere, or even in most places. 

Here on the mountain, we love and are constantly being pushed and taught to love more. We see the hurt, brokenness, and ugliness in ourselves and the people around us, and at Covenant, we’re encouraged to not only share and lament those stories, but to also push each other to see God’s faithfulness and hand in everything. The education we are receiving is giving us the tools to be those who bring healing and reconciliation. These tools allow us to push each other towards holiness, towards unity, in ways that are not common everywhere else—even within the PCA. 

And why are they not more common? Because of fear. Fear of doing the wrong thing and looking stupid in front of important people. Fear of losing control. Fear of change. 

That said, I think we must remember that the people (men) making these decisions do love Jesus, and to them, this is what loving Him looks like. We should also remember that the decision was not unanimous. 

In making this decision, however, these men are missing out—we are missing out—on enriching our understanding of the love of Jesus by listening to other voices that He created, which in this instance happens to be female voices. 

So, Covenant College, I challenge you to keep caring. I challenge you to keep following Jesus, wherever that may take you, and to keep listening to the voices that are silenced, even if you disagree with them. 

I challenge you to keep praying for our leadership, at Covenant and in the PCA as a whole. Pray for humility, for freedom from fear, and for a softness and tenderness towards the real love of Jesus, not only their experience of it. Pray that we, the body of Christ, would continue to push each other towards holiness, even when it’s hard. Because ultimately, we will remain divided while we are afraid of change and each other, and we are called to unity, to something much bigger than we are, and that is why and how we will move forward.