Dear Candles,
I've had a bunch of conversations with students, alumni, faculty, and staff about Houghton's involvement with ROTC, so I wrote down some thoughts. They appear below. My hope is that some of you will respond to this document with suggestions: everything from editorial suggestions to entirely new ways of phrasing things to brand new questions we should consider. For example, I know next to nothing about the Wesleyan Church's historical or current stance on military leadership; if anyone wants to supply me with entire paragraphs, you are welcome to.
My hope is that once this gets the once-over from people who might be sympathetic to my sentiments, then I will send it to some folks who may add their own yes/no responses to each section. I'd like the document NOT to simply reflect the opinions of those who agree with me. I'd like various sides to have a voice, and make this public before we attempt to debate it in public.
My thanks to Lori Huth and Ben Lipscomb for their responses to my first draft. Here is the second draft:
In consideration of the Houghton's involvement with conflict studies
We have two questions to consider: whether Houghton should align itself with a program that trains military leaders and--since war, conflict, peace, and restitution are pervasive in this world--whether the college should create a concentration, with classes taught by Houghton faculty, that studies these issues. This a working document that Houghton faculty can use as a springboard for deciding the answers to these questions.
Should Houghton align itself with a program--namely, ROTC--that trains military leaders?
No - Christians ought to be involved wherever there is conflict, but they do not have to be the ones holding guns. Instead, they can hold shovels, scalpels, chalk, books, seeds. How often is a military described as a light in the world, or salt of the earth? Compare with how often we hear these words used to describe people who have devoted themselves to the pursuit of justice through peaceful means. Our college should actively align itself with these people.
No - The courses in this minor are designed primarily for professional training, not critical thinking or intellectual exploration. As such, the pursuit of military leadership skills stands in contrast to the pursuit of two of the hallmarks of liberal arts studies. Among our other minors are, arguably, other professional training courses, but military training is, arguably, a field of studies that by its nature requires very careful attention.
No - Students are asked to make a multi-year commitment at a too early age. An adult who has pursued a four-year journey in the liberal arts will be much better suited to make a long-term commitment to the military than will a teenager who has yet to walk that journey. The college should acknowledge this point by withdrawing its sanction for the ROTC program.
No - By its nature, a military puts its personnel into highly charged ethical situations. Our college should be excessively careful when we vouch for a program that brings with it a multi-year commitment to an institution that issues armaments to its members and puts them in life-and-death situations. We have too little influence over how our ROTC students learn what they must to confront these matters.
No - Military leadership training asks for devotion to country, not to God. The oath of service that military men and women take begins: "I solemnly affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same." Contrast this with the words of Jesus, who says that those who inhabit the kingdom of heaven are those who love and pray for their enemies.
Should the Houghton catalog contain a concentration in conflict and peace studies?
Yes - Conflict and peace studies are tailor-made for an interdisciplinary liberal arts program. No single discipline suffices to explore the complexities of conflict resolution and peace building. Few other studies can lay claim to such a bridging of the majors we offer.
Yes - We should acknowledge the shape our world is in thanks to war. Conflicts have formed our world like few other things. Preparing students to wisely face the broken world should be one of our institutional goals.
Yes - Our calling is to serve the oppressed and the poor, and knowledge of conflict and peace will assist us. In fact, without proper preparation, people who involve themselves in restorative efforts sometimes do more harm than good.
Other questions that bear on these issues
o Aren't Christians needed in all walks of life, including the military?
It is a misreading of "all walks of life" to think that Christians must actively engage in all earthly pursuits. When the military is engaged in the world, it often leaves an aftermath of strife and sorrow. By actively participating in restorative efforts, Christians will be involved in exactly those "walks of life" that Jesus called us to. There are many moral ways that Christians can be involved in regions of the world where conflicts are tearing apart societies, and there is no walk of life where the military treads where Christians cannot be thus involved.
o Aren't military forces a primary source of peace in the world, thanks to their deterrent power?
Militaries are not primary sources of peace. They are almost always used to advance a nation's agenda, whether it be for economics or for security or for retribution. Further, there are many other ways to bring peace to the world that are in closer sync with the message of the gospels. Wells can be dug, microbusinesses started, irrigation systems installed. Christians should participate in the peace process via these means, rather than by means that may require them to threaten or kill.
o Wouldn't you rather have a Christian in a leadership position in the military than a non-Christian?
This suggests that it would be best if a military leader made his or her decisions on the basis of the principles of the kingdom of heaven, which include loving one's enemies and turning the other cheek. A military leader cannot make military decisions on these principles.
o Why shouldn't Houghton ally itself with military leadership?
The question is: should this particular liberal arts college publicly support military efforts, or should we align ourselves with groups who go intelligently into service in war-ravaged regions (e.g. World Vision, World Hope, the Mennonite Central Committee)?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Since this is my first contribution to this blog so far, I'd like to first say thanks to MLP for inviting me to join the conversation, and for the thoughts of everyone so far.
After reading and reflecting on the posts to this point, there is one more issue that concerns me--and it seems to most closely touch the issues you've raised in this post, Dave. I'll try to articulate it as best as I can. The concern first began growing in my mind when I read (in MLP's first post) that "The so-called minor (a collection of laundered credits garnered elsewhere under the tutelage of non-Houghton faculty) will appear on their Houghton College transcripts, just as if they had committed that work at Houghton."
Dave, in addition to the concerns that you've already voiced, my concern is for this minor as completed outside of Houghton. As you wrote, "By its nature, a military puts its personnel into highly charged ethical situations." To be sure, ethical matters are considered and applicable in all spheres, both Christian and secular. However, my concern is mostly because the minor is completed entirely outside of the milieu of Houghton College--by faculty not necessarily aligned or even familiar with Houghton's foundations and mission--and then appropriated in. So my main questions is: what contradictions might students in this minor encounter in ethical matters? How might the ethics of a military-focused program and instructors conflict with the Christian ethos that Houghton attempts to embrace?
The issue I raise is, of course, the underlying implication in many of your questions and considerations already; yet my concern is for this matter explicitly. Does Houghton's acceptance of a problematically ethics-driven minor entirely acquired in another institution and entirely by faculty not aligned with the same mission as Houghton undercut the very reason that Houghton exists as a Christian liberal arts in the first place? If Houghton is an institution founded on non-secular (in fact, heavily Christian) mores, in order to provide a non-secular (in ways, counter-cultural) environment for intellectual development, how does sponsoring such ethically-charged studies outside of Houghton affect and challenge Houghton's mission and goals?
That's an excellent point, Brandon. I agree entirely.
It's interesting to read opinions about Houghton, even while agreeing with them, from an outside, more objective point of view. The way it is described, Houghton almost sounds closed and even cultish. "Don't educate yourself outside of Houghton's culture or it might be wrong..." Of course that's not at all what is meant, but I think this is a tender issue you've raised. The problem isn't that our liberal arts education is so closed-minded; I think, on the contrary, the concern is that students will not receive a complete education by focusing a major solely in military studies without the well-roundedness one finds attempted at Houghton. However, because it is a Christian campus, we also must be aware of the goals set to maintain a true-to-Christ morale. To promote such education of violent ethics would be against the very nature of what Christ's message is. There needs to be a balance; hence, the liberal arts education, which would not then be received so much if done outside the educational discernment of Houghton. I suppose, it's a matter of, if you choose to go to Houghton, it should be part of the "community responsibilities" to adhere to the particular selection of what is appropriate and inappropriate thoroughness of a minor or major. If a student wants to focus on military studies and the ethics involved in that place, Houghton should not be the school of choice. There has to be some sort of contradiction already in the contract of community responsibilities. I'm going to find it...
Wow - I'm awefully good at repeating what others have already said... Anyway, I think personally I just find it interesting how different Houghton looks from the outside, and in hindsight. And maybe I'm a little protective. And maybe I just needed to talk out loud about it.
I appreciate hearing Houghton degree-holder's perspectives on this--thanks Brandon and Karis for weighing in. The question you raise, Brandon, was asked in a slightly different form on the floor of the faculty, but it was never answered. Someone then pointed out that the response hadn't addressed the question, but no one picked it up, so that yawning gap in the justification was left open and howling when the vote was called. And the question of how this fits with the statement of community responsibilities, which you raise Karis, is an interesting approach to the question--one that didn't come up. Taken together, these observations call the "fit" into question in very serious ways. It is comforting to see alums of the College reason so clearly about this!
I too am thankful for your replies, Brandon and Karis! I may have questions for you later, although the clarity of your responses seems to leave little room.
Post a Comment