Ghetto's Response to the Open Letter

This article is a response to an open letter by Meg Miller ’21 which was distributed on campus on October 30. The Bagpipe has a copy of Miller’s original letter, which can be read here: https://www.bagpipeonline.com/opinions/2019/11/19/an-open-letter-to-ghetto.

We have come to realize that there has been increasing discussion on campus about our hall name “Ghetto,” notably “An Open Letter to Ghetto,” distributed on campus on October 30. Through these discussions, we have become aware of how our name has offended some people. We are sad that some people are offended by this. This was never our intention, and we are grateful for this opportunity to explain our name and what it means to us.

We understand that American society generally thinks of the term “ghetto” as pejorative, from its origins in German and Italian “Jewish Ghettos” to its more recent association with poor, often minority-dominated, inner-city neighborhoods. However, we believe that because of our hall history, we have the opportunity to challenge this norm, use the term to remind us of our calling to be in the world, and show the love of Christ. 

We admit that we have not done a good job of conveying and explaining the history of where our name comes from. We also admit that we have not been in the Chattanooga community as much as we used to be and thus have not lived up to the name that was proudly given to us. Therefore, allow us to explain the history of where we come from and what the name means to us as a hall.

Ghetto’s name came to be what it is today over 40 years ago when we started going down the mountain into the low-income communities of Chattanooga to minister and preach the gospel. The people of these communities originally called us “the mission to the Saint Elmo Ghetto,” and this was later abbreviated to “Ghetto.” We have wanted to live up to this name ever since.

Because of this history, our name pushes us to constantly place our identity in Christ and become more Christ-centered. By going down the mountain and engaging with those communities, we fulfill that calling together as a hall. The hall name “Ghetto” reminds us of our humble beginnings, which enables us to glorify God through our hall name. We believe that as image-bearers, one of our callings is to seek to redeem and restore this world, and thus, we want to seek to redeem any negative connotations that may come with this word. 

We understand that the Covenant community is very small relative to American society at large, as well as the Jewish and African American communities that have been hurt by negative uses of the word “ghetto.” However, we are taught here at Covenant to recognize the reality that we as individuals do not have much influence in our broader society but, despite that, to still work to glorify God by challenging cultural norms.

A current sophomore who does not live on Ghetto said, “Changing the name ‘Ghetto’ does not resolve the racial issues and tension on campus… I don’t think the hall ‘Ghetto’ depicts any form of oppression to African Americans. I don’t think anyone from the hall has said the hall is called Ghetto because African Americans live in the ghetto… this issue about changing a hall name would not solve the issue minority students face from friends and professors at Covenant College.”

A current junior who also does not live on Ghetto said, “How then can we achieve racial reconciliation? The name of the hall ‘Ghetto’ symbolizes a lot of history and tradition that should not be taken lightly, but changing it will be a sacrifice for all the things it stands for and for all the foundation it has in Christ. There has to be room for grace. This is not the issue.”

One of the ways we seek to do this is by building relationships and community both within and outside Covenant College. These relationships have impacted the Lookout Mountain community and the greater Chattanooga community. There are a great number of alumni who still live on the mountain and have impacted the community for the better because of relationships formed on Ghetto. 

For instance, President Halvorson is a Ghetto alumnus and seeks to lead our college in a way that promotes Christ as preeminent in all things. Aaron Tolson, who was a Ghetto RA in the 90s, has been pastoring youth at Lookout Mountain Presbyterian Church for 17 years now. Andrew Novenson, son of Pastor Joe Novenson, has been a middle school Bible teacher at CCS since he graduated from Covenant in the mid-2000s. These are just a few examples of how Ghetto alumni have had an impact on and off the mountain. 

We understand that some might be offended and hurt with our name. We also understand that, although our intentions were not to use “ghetto” in a racist or negative connotation, our intentions do not outweigh peoples’ hurt. However, we all share the same goal of achieving racial reconciliation in our communities, and although we might disagree on how to best achieve that, we hope that we can be open with each other, work together, and discuss solutions to the deeper issue at hand.

The current junior mentioned above said, “If you want to change things around Covenant and the community, or tackle certain racial issues… we should tackle the curriculum or chapel speakers. Covenant as a community should do a better job of being part of the community through [local] churches and through halls.”

Our hall, unified, has agreed to do a better job of being involved in the Chattanooga community. We will be reaching out to the local neighborhoods with the ultimate goal of sharing the gospel and the love of Christ. We will be educating ourselves about the realities of the white savior complex and will be sensitive to avoiding it. Because of this, we are committed to ministering through pre-established local church ministries in order to be sure that we help where there are actual needs.

We know that this does not fulfill all of the requests in the Open Letter, but we believe that the best way to glorify God in this situation is by changing some of our ways and keeping our hall name.

We do believe this is an important discussion to have with the community, and we welcome and invite more conversation. Please reach out and set up a meeting with anyone on our hall. We would be more than happy to dive further into discussion and reflection with you all.

Kilter and the Ethics of Zoos

As I purposefully stayed back at Covenant during Kilter, I couldn’t help but wonder why a school dance was being held at a zoo. After a long day of being ogled at by humans, aren’t the animals expecting a nice and quiet evening? Is it possible, even if the dance floor was far away from the exhibits, the loud music and thundering bass disrupted the many residents of the Chattanooga Zoo?

I grew up going to the Toledo Zoo most summers when I visited my extended family. I remember loving seeing the animals that I would otherwise probably never see, such as flamingos, giraffes, elephants, and penguins.

Looking back on those experiences, I am struck by how small and how different the habitats really were from the animals’ natural habitats. Polar bears had to endure the hot summer sun when their native habitat is in the arctic circle.

Zoos accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) help participate in conservation work and even contribute to the rehabilitation of animals. These are great things that a lot of zoos participate in. 

Although the animals are undoubtedly taken care of well at AZA zoos, why do we feel the need to keep animals in captivity? These zoos are nonprofits and aim to educate people on wildlife preservation, but why do animals have to be taken far away from their homes to accomplish this? Why must animals be held in captivity in order to protect them? 

Conservation has become an important part of the Chattanooga Zoo. 

Its website states that the zoo participates in “several AZA Species Survival Plans including Snow Leopards, Cotton-Top Tamarins, Jaguars, Fennec Foxes and more.” They are “currently in partnership with Lee University, conducting ground-breaking research critical to preserving the native Hellbender population from extinction.” In addition, the Chattanooga Zoo is “a regional leader in the field of native wildlife rehabilitation and is the only state licensed wildlife rehabilitation facility.” 

These are amazing feats that should not go without applause. However, there is a paradox in which holding animals captive to serve as money-makers for zoos has become necessary for funding conservation projects. 

In the wild, many animals face danger from poaching. This is why most zoos believe it is right to have animals in captivity.  

The International Anti-Poaching Foundation (IAPF) is a great example of an organization that is taking action to protect species from human harm. They train rangers who guard animals in their natural habitats.

The IAPF website says, “The IAPF builds and leads large scale conservation operations, maintaining a strong focus on community development in order to conserve biodiversity.” 

Biodiversity is something Christians should care about. God created so many beautiful animal (and plant) species. It is our role to care for creatures and to make sure they are being protected and do not go extinct. 

Animals were not created for cages. This earth was created with so much land, specific to the species living on it, and yet it has become acceptable to take these species away from their natural environments for the sake of conservation and education.

Many zoos have amazing breeding programs and behavior studies which aid wildlife conservation. Further, zoo animals become ambassadors for their species, and this can serve as a method of raising money to help protect wild populations. A lot of zoos contain endangered species for this purpose. 

Where should the line be drawn? How can we reach a point where animals are not treated as entertainment, and money can be raised without having to hold animals captive? 

Overall, it is important to remember our roles as stewards of creation and to refrain as much as possible from participating in the exploitation of animals. If you do choose to go to zoos, only go to ones that are AZA accredited, and keep in mind that the animals you see were not made to be in mock-habitats that are much smaller than their natural environments.

Reflections from a Transfer Junior

Photoa by Eden Anyabwile

As a transfer junior, I sometimes consider myself more privileged than four-year Covenant students. Having a perspective from another college, I feel that I can appreciate Covenant’s culture more deeply. 

The halls worried me at first because I had no idea how to find anyone. My old school had a very straightforward system, naming halls things like Johnson Lower Front, Rickard Upper Middle, etc. Here, I have to memorize a million arbitrary hall names, with no logical way to figure out where places like Rowan or Blackwatch are.

Dorm life here is pretty amazing (and confusing). For example, why does Brethren dress like a monastery? Why does Catacombs operate a (literally) underground coffee shop? Why does everyone get so hype about the Late Show, which is essentially a walk through the Student Handbook? Hall life isn’t like this elsewhere. Enjoy every possible minute of it. 

Maybe the best adjustment was realizing how small the campus is. While it might feel too small at times, the benefits are huge. For example, we can roll out of the Great Hall at 12:57 and be on time for a 1:00 class. We can essentially wake up at 7:50 and still hit snooze before having to get ready for our 8 a.m. Another perk of a walkable campus means I don’t have to live in constant dread of getting creamed by a longboard or bike anymore!

When it comes to rules, I was overwhelmed at first by the freedom here. For a Christian college, Covenant has practically none. We have no curfew, no dress code, open hall hours three times a week, and drinking at legal age during breaks. This is unusual for conservative schools. Bask in your freedom to wear shorts or sweatpants to class! 

Let’s talk about Carter for a second. We eat lunch in a freaking castle mountain resort. I spent two years dining in an orange-and-yellow cafeteria that was probably the height of style in 1991. How can anyone complain about Chartwells when we’re literally eating in a medieval-style great hall that looks down over the mist rising off the mountains below?

Although many jokes are made about the chapel architecture, let’s appreciate the stained-glass that captures the late morning sun during chapel services, shining especially brilliantly through the figure of the ascended Christ as we sing His praises. Coming from chapel services at my old university that employed a wide range of fog machines and lights displays that easily became a stumbling block to focused worship, I hope every student here understands how uniquely beautiful Covenant’s services are. 

On a more personal note, I’m grateful to everyone who said “hi” to this very shy transfer. Friends, say hello to a quiet new student, whether freshman or transfer. Chances are, they’re just insecure and overwhelmed (even if they have an angry resting face, like me). We’re the family of Christ; there’s no place for prideful divisions based on school year, place of origin, or friend group.

And brothers and sisters, don’t take this place for granted.  

Open on Sunday: A Review of Popeyes' Chicken Sandwich

When I heard that someone was fatally stabbed after cutting in the “chicken sandwich line” at Popeyes, I thought to myself, “I have got to try this thing.” So I convinced late night snacking king Caleb Walter and Chick-Fil-A super fan Ismael Bartolome Julian to ride with me down to the Popeyes on Broad Street, hell-bent on getting my hands on one of these sandwiches. I wouldn’t say I’d kill to get one, but I was excited. 

We parked in the busier-than-pre-chicken-sandwich-Popeyes parking lot at a little past six, and walked into the orange-tinted Louisiana Kitchen. On the way in, my appetite was whetted further by a large poster prominently featuring the sandwich of legend. “This is it,” I whispered to myself as I opened the door. “I’m finally here.” 

Unsurprisingly, there was a bit of a line. But no problem—the Great Hall has been developing our patience for years. Standing with our backs to large glass jars of seemingly fresh ingredients, we squinted at the menu TVs. To Caleb and Ismael’s great distress, the images of the Chicken Sandwich (both Classic and Spicy) had “BE BACK SOON” slapped on them. What could this mean? Are they out already? Was the poster outside lying? Is everything a lie? What will I order if not a chicken sandwich? But while Caleb and Ismael were experiencing existential panic, I was quite calm. Though they are open on Sundays, I had faith in Popeyes. I knew they would not let me down. 

When I finally found myself at the register, and after being told to wait one more second—again, no big deal—I confirmed the existence of the sandwich. Our local Popeyes offers two options: Classic and Spicy. I couldn’t decide which one to get, so, in order to maintain my journalistic integrity and ensure that Covenant students received the most comprehensive review of Popeyes’ creation, I decided to get one of each. 

I began with the Classic because I wanted my first experience of the chicken sandwich to be untainted by the kicks and punches of the “spicy” mayo on the Spicy. The first thing I noticed when I unsheathed the Classic out of its opaque wrapping was its overall girth. Granted, I had received a larger chicken breast than Caleb or Ismael, but even theirs were large. What you have in the Classic is a well-breaded, and well-flavored, thick slab of fried chicken surrounded by a thin layer of classic mayo and two hearty pickle slices—all hugged by a golden brown brioche bun. 

The overwhelming ingredient, for sure, is the chicken. It’s by far the biggest thing on the sandwich (it’s not called a pickle sandwich, after all), and its presence makes the sandwich feel less like a sandwich and more like a fried chicken breast supported by a bun, if you know what I mean. The other ingredients—mayo and pickles—play minor roles in the overall taste of the sandwich. 

The Spicy, to be honest, is not much different than the Classic. You get all the same ingredients, including the same non-spicy chicken breast, but they lather on some spicy mayo instead of the classic mayo. For those who enjoy a zesty bite to their food, the Spicy is for you. It certainly doesn’t take anything away from the pure experience of the Classic, and it gives it a little variety in taste. 

Overall, Popeyes offers in their chicken sandwich a pure and delicious fried chicken experience contained in a glutenous, portable shell. Your taste buds might not be surprised or particularly challenged by this sandwich, but you will feel warmed and right at home when you take your first bite.

Responding to John Crist's Sexual Midconduct

I saw a headline in my Instagram feed on November 6 that read, “John Crist cancels tour after numerous reports of sexual misconduct; admits to ‘sexual sin and addiction struggle.’”

I thought, “Oh, wow, the Babylon Bee is getting edgier.” They had published a satirical article about Tim Tebow during the #metoo movement where women were coming forward and accusing him of treating them... respectfully. I thought this was another one in the same vein. But then I saw the account name, and it was Adam Ford’s newest, non-satirical news site, Disrn. This was an actual headline. This was real. John Crist is a sexual predator.

We consumers of Christian entertainment culture often idolize our good, clean Instagram content creators. These celebrities can range from comedian Jaron Myers, known for his Chick-fil-A music video, to David Crowder, a popular Christian music artist known for interspersing his normal posts with pretty great memes. We love to support those who make our lives better, be it by telling our friends about them or sharing their posts on our stories. They unify us over wholesome topics. We get to laugh at church culture with others in it, and that's a great thing!

But this innocent fun is sullied when it is abused and exploited. It cracks the unity we as kids and young adults enjoyed. It betrays our trust, the trust we didn’t realize we had placed in someone we had never even met. We didn’t know John Crist personally, but we had built a relationship with him through watching his comedically-long Instagram stories and sharing embarrassing moments. For there to be a much darker side to the man who brought us so much joy hurts. We feel betrayed. Deceived. It’s disheartening, but what can we do now? What is our next step? 

I want to encourage us not to lose heart, but to be more moderate and cautious in our support and investment into the lives of people we can’t possibly know. Online, we build communities and cultures around people who are more brands than friends, and we forget that they are human and fallible.

I’m not condemning these artificial societies, because I actually greatly enjoy them and have seen a lot of good come from them. But I think the important part is to remember that they are artificial. To be blunt, we are merely consumers of what people like John Crist sell, which is themselves and their brand. And this is why we feel betrayed. We were sold a product with deceptively safe packaging, and now there’s a recall.

The implications of this are unfortunately widespread. Two of the women who came forward with their stories of how he tried to seduce them have now left Christianity as a result. If he was who Christians really are, then they didn’t want any part of that. And that should break our hearts.

DC Talk, a Christian band from the 90s, wrote a song called “What If I Stumble?” that dealt with this fear of leading people astray in weakness, thereby sullying the name of Christians. They thought through what it meant to be a Christian celebrity and the responsibility that went with it. They knew that people looked up to them, but also that they would fail their fans. This kind of scandal should sober us and bring us back to the reality of our own human nature, reminding us that we need to be cautious, but also that we need to give grace.

What John Crist needs right now is what we all need, which is the forgiveness of Christ and the grace of God. Since he has already publicly apologized, we as Christians need to forgive, even though it’s hard. That doesn’t mean trusting him again or putting ourselves in situations that could be compromising, but there is an inordinate amount of hate in Christian communities when celebrities are caught in sin, which should not be the case. What kind of testimony would it be for us to bite back the bitter words we want to say and instead pray for his healing and publically care for him by lifting Him to the Father? It is our love, our irrational love that only comes from God, that will set us apart from the outrage culture around us. This doesn’t mean that we forget or, God forbid, ignore what he did, but may we handle ourselves with appropriate anger at the sin, God’s love for the sinner, and support and love for the victims. Isn’t that what we are called to do? 

This is a sad and sobering time for the church as a whole. I pray and exhort us to be wise and gracious to all those involved. May we not be surprised or react in sin, but may we honor God in our attitudes and actions.

Is Covenant College Ready for President O’Rourke?

Recently, a LGBTQ Equality town hall was held by CNN for Democratic presidential candidates. Several views expressed by candidates at the town hall spell trouble for religious liberty and Christianity in America, particularly those of Beto O’Rourke.

O’Rourke promised that as president, that he would take away the tax exempt status of religious institutions, including churches and schools, who do not support same-sex unions. He justified his policies by claiming that institutions who do not support same-sex unions violate the human and civil rights of others.

It is incredible how far the push for LGBTQ rights has shifted over the last several years. First, it was said that same-sex marriage would not affect Christians because what people did in private shouldn’t matter. Today, progressive politicians and LGBTQ rights organizations are pushing for total acceptance and support for this unbiblical institution and practice.

The LGBTQ movement does not just want the right to wave the rainbow flag—it wants to force anyone who disagrees with them to wave it as well. This is seen in a litany of recent court cases, from the attempt to shut down Colorado baker Jack Philips to the imposition of fines on the Klein’s bakery in Oregon.

While many conservative Christians rallied to support these courageous individuals, who were  intimidated by the state for their beliefs, others remained passively silent. They believed that since they were not in the wedding industry, they might be spared from this progressive bullying.

It now appears that the time to remain neutral on this issue is (or will soon be) over. While O’Rourke or any of his other progressive comrades may not be elected in 2020, it is only a matter of time before someone comes to power who will be all too eager to use the coercive power of the state to crack down on allegedly-bigoted Christian institutions.

This begs the question: are we ready for this? Specifically, will Covenant be willing to lose its tax exempt status, other forms of federal funding, and accept the threat of a potential lawsuit if necessary?

Unfortunately, I do not think that we are. We might be willing to sustain one lawsuit, but I believe that eventually we would compromise our beliefs.

In my three years at Covenant I have heard many discussions on environmentalism, immigration, and pluralism. I applaud Covenant for wrestling with these difficult and complex issues. However, I believe that, for the most part, the prevailing culture will not have a problem with the positions generally supported at Covenant. 

On the other hand, in Christ and Culture, a class about Christian engagement in culture, there are no lectures on being pro-life in a pro-death culture, which shrugs as nearly a million unborn children lose their lives every year. There are no lectures on the importance of God’s design for marriage in the midst of a culture that daily denigrates marriage. There are no lectures about the spread of transgender ideology, which hurts children and ignores God’s creation of male and female.

These are all issues over which the prevailing culture will hate our convictions. While there are some individual classes which address some of these issues, they receive little attention in the core which every Covenant student is required to take. I believe that this is a mistake because these scarcely covered issues are precisely those which our generation of Christians is most tempted to compromise on. 

We must work to cultivate a culture at Covenant which is unafraid at a broader level to not only engage with the culture, but also to oppose it if need be. 

If we as an institution are not bold in declaring unpopular biblical truths, how can we be sure that we will not compromise when the government comes knocking on our door telling us to render unto Caesar what is God’s?

Christianity and the Fight for Peace

Those of you from Christian homes have probably grown up hearing the phrase “turn the other cheek,” as taken from Matthew 5:39. Yet God assists in wars and even wiped out an entire army for Jehoshaphat while his army slept in 2 Chronicles 20:1-30. Psalm 37:8 tells us, “Don’t give in to worry or anger; it only leads to trouble,” yet we see Jesus flip tables in the temple out of anger. 

We look up from the Word and into our world, where we see murder, abuse, abortion, and cruel, unbearable injustices that lead so many to question if there even is a God. What are we supposed to do? How can we glorify God if we don’t fight for what is just in his sight? How can we obey him if we do? 

These questions have bothered me all of my life, and while I believe there is no clear-cut solution, I think two questions can aid us in discerning the good fight: First, am I fighting for a God-honoring cause in a God-honoring way that can be clearly backed up by Scripture? Second, would my participation rescue or protect the lives of my loved ones or my country? 

“Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow (Isaiah 1:17.)” The dictionary defines being just as “based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair.” Our Heavenly Father has called us to seek out justice.  Not only has he called us to do so, but he has also equipped us with this ability, by making us in his image, allowing us to reflect some of his attributes, and giving Scripture to guide us through our distorted views of justice. 

The distortion drives children to attempt to conceal their joy when “tattling” on their siblings. The distortion drives Christians to plaster condemning verses on their car to scare people into taking a statement of faith that merely gives them a new label, rather than a new life. The distortion leads us to fight for things that too often just make us feel like good people or get us the justice we feel we deserve. However, when we look at God’s just actions, knowing that he is our ultimate example, we can see that his pursuit of justice points back to himself. Ours should point back to him, too.

The second question convicted me as I thought about the story of Alvin York. After having a rebellious past, York threw aside his old life to pursue a life for Christ, only to find himself in the middle of World War I, feeling a strong moral obligation not to kill another human. However, after witnessing the deaths of several friends who might have lived had he drawn his weapon, he realized he could honor God through fighting for his country and the people he loved. 

Our Shepherd left his 99 sheep to rescue one. While observing the biblical view of justice, we must also ask ourselves if standing back while others are harmed is more honoring to God than taking a life in order to preserve one.

To conclude, when we are fighting for biblically-just causes and the preservation of life, the glory of God can be amplified and revealed to great masses, but the key lies in our desperation to seek God’s will and to act on biblical truths, rather than acting on our distorted views of justice.

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. 

Recycling

During the environmental movement of the 1960s and 70s, a phrase we all know well was born: “Reduce, reuse, and recycle.” In our day and age however, one seems to be emphasized over the others: recycling. 

Don’t get me wrong—I am not against recycling by any means. This is not an argument against recycling, but a call for us to examine the other two ‘Rs’. There is a reason why recycling comes last—because it is the least effective of the three and uses the most amount of extra energy. The recycled materials are transported elsewhere, often internationally, and then energy is used to break down the product. 

Out of all three ‘Rs,’ reducing has by far the most impact. Simply not using a product that is not environmentally friendly is always the most beneficial. If we all begin to not use certain products, the market will turn to where our demand and consumption are. 

This doesn’t have to be radical. There are little things that you can do in your life to both reuse and reduce. If you are off campus, switch to reusing your containers you get at the store for food instead of using plastic baggies; take a reusable cup with you instead of getting plastic cups or plastic water bottles; if you are going to Starbucks, bring your own mug (you get a discount if you do) or maybe just don’t take a sleeve; buy food in bulk instead of individually wrapped; when you go out to the grocery store, bring reusable bags. If you forget them, maybe just don’t get any bags at all. I see many people coming out from the store who only got a few items and are still carrying them in a bag. You have two hands that God gave you. Use them wisely. Reducing can even be as simple as carpooling. 

Yes, this might take a bit of an effort. You might have to remember to bring around a water bottle or put in a bit of an effort to carpool, but we are called to use our resources wisely and steward them well—even if that means putting in a little bit of extra work. 

And what about reusing? There are so many ways that you can use things a second, third or fourth time. Offer it up to your friends as well. I broke my shoe, and the bottom started coming off. Instead of throwing it away, I just glued the bottom back on. Before you throw things away, begin to think of other ways you could use them (ex: we cut up old t-shirts at my house and use them as rags). Buy more second-hand and sell more second-hand. This practice is not only better for the environment, but better for your wallet as well. 

The first step to change is consciousness. Start to pay attention to how much you use--even the little things. Begin to be more conscious. As you go throughout your week, see how much you don’t use and waste. Recycling can be good, but is a last measure. Reducing and reusing give far more preventative methods. 

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.”

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.