Last One, I Promise

October 4, 2007, 8:45 am; posted by
Filed under Articles, Steve  | 3 Comments

I just can’t resist, I’m sorry. Part of it is that I find the issue interesting, but more than that, I just want to help these people get better. And honestly, I’m slightly annoyed that they refuse to approve the comment where I linked to this site. The previous articles are here and here.

We’ll just have to settle for being the only site people find when they search for theirs. Onto it…

[T]he revolution has noticed a few distinct responses to our actions; people either despise us for the right reasons, admire us for the wrong reasons, or, what we feel is the proper response, feel that we are irrelevant and idiotic.

Wow. So much self-loathing, so little time. If there are right reasons to despise someone, isn’t it the proper response to, say, despise them? Why can’t there be a middle ground, for someone who just desperately wants them to keep taking themselves so seriously?

Consider that you were to die tomorrow, or consider what it would be like if the whole school were sucked into a chasm, actually it’s probably best just to consider what it would be like to leave Houghton tomorrow and not come back.

Actually, it’s probably best to consider that sentence a hypothetical train wreck (maybe one that resulted from a math problem with the two trains leaving the two cities) and start fresh. If these guys keep stealing stuff, they might just find out what exactly it would be like to leave Houghton and not come back. Maybe they could go find that legendary sucking chasm, down by Wiscoy.

[Y]ou would miss your friends, and you would miss the people; the “community” is an illusion which we create to help us be better people and doesn’t deserve our attention unless it serves its purpose.

Okay, we might have an interesting philosophical idea here. Does the concept of ‘community’ exist apart from people? Well, yes, and no. Community is meaningless without the people who make it up, but that doesn’t make it an illusion. It’s divinely inspired — after all, the first thing Adam got was community… with God, with Eve. We don’t create “community” to help us be better people; we live in community because it is the way we were designed to live! The history of mankind shows us that pretty clearly.

Let us consider why it is that we have chapel scanners in the first place; obviously this is because people are not responsible enough to take care of their own spiritual formation

This is not obvious, it is not true, and it reminds me that I want to write a post soon on why I’ll never be a libertarian. Rules — even rules that require action — do not necessarily strip anyone of responsibility. They simply provide an incentive to act responsibly.

Libertarians, once they reach a certain age, need to look at themselves in the mirror and ask if it’s freedom they love, or rebellion.

I’ll summarize the next bit, because it’s wordy and complex.
1) If it’s better to go to chapel, but some students don’t go, won’t they notice the difference?
2) Shouldn’t it be the ones who go encouraging the ones who don’t go to come?
3) If people can’t notice the difference, is it worth going?

Okay, fine. But then:

Either approach we take regarding this issue we are forced to make a difficult decision; but who are we trying to advantage by requiring chapel? The community or the students? You may say they are the same thing, but just imagine you are going to die very soon (relatively this is true), and tell me you still see them as the same thing; what advantage have we done them now that we’re all dead?

I cannot understand what this could possibly mean. Is it that mandating chapel won’t do us any good after we’re all dead, sucked down that infamous chasm? Or are we back on that linguistic point that community can’t exist without students? Hey, if we’re all dead, who is that mysterious them getting the advantage??

Viola!!

Is Christianity such a mediocre thing that it requires compulsion, or is it better to leave it up to volition and take responsibility as individuals to help our friends better themselves . . .? It is not that chapel compulsion destroys Christianity as such, but that it excuses us from taking responsibility in the lives of our friends and fellow persons. I recommend that we give over control and instead take up responsibility. Compulsory chapel attendance treats us as children; obviously children need such a discipline, but when do we grow up?

Now this is a reasonable and fair argument. I happen to think it’s wrong — I think an expectation of attendance, entered into upon admission, actually increases responsibility and shows the importance of spiritual growth to the group (and it’s very unfair to say compulsion implies Christianity is ‘mediocre’) — but it’s at least a serious thought, after some false starts and confusion.

But so much effort, and for what…


Comments

3 Comments to “Last One, I Promise”

  1. Josh J on October 4th, 2007 10:22 am

    Here’s the part that always gets me about these arguments:

    Houghton isn’t making you do anything.

    Upon entering the school you made a choice. You chose to agree to certain community standards and responsibilities. If you are unhappy with that choice you are free to make a different one. Even now, while still attending the school, you are actually free to not uphold your end of the agreement, and to accept the consequences. That is all your choice.

    Beyond that, the idea that compulsory chapel renders the spiritual experience of Houghton void is quite short sighted. Chapel is merely one piece. And it is quite institutional, bringing with it the benefits – and yes, the limitations – of the institutional experience. But there are plenty of opportunities outside of chapel for the organic experience you seek. Go find them, and appreciate chapel for what it is.

    And on the off chance that all this fuss is merely because you got tired of waiting in scanner lines, try the one in the front right corner of the chapel. That one always had the shortest line.

  2. Marcus on October 4th, 2007 1:40 pm

    Speaking from a tradition were Sunday mass is obligatory and certain holy days require additional church-time, I guess I do not see what all the hubbub is about. Many things foisted on us are beneficial… particularly those virtue-inspiring actions which we would’ve neglected had their observation not been enforced.

    I am intrigued with the line “Does the concept of ‘community’ exist apart from people? Well, yes, and no. Community is meaningless without the people who make it up, but that doesn’t make it an illusion. It’s divinely inspired — after all, the first thing Adam got was community: with God, with Eve. We don’t create “community” to help us be better people; we live in community because it is the way we were designed to live!”

    Personally, I think that individuals are necessarily communal/relational. The question for me is not “is community meaningful without its constituents,” but “in what capacity can an individual be said to ‘exist’ apart from a community?” If this intrigues you, I have more of this type of thought on my site.

  3. MC-B on October 4th, 2007 2:03 pm

    I can’t count the number of times I’ve gone to church on Sunday not wanting to be there (going instead because it’s expected or because someone was counting on me to go) and ended up having an enriching experience. I’m willing to sacrifice my ability to not attend church if it means that I’ll go on the weekends that I don’t want it but really need it. People don’t always know what’s best for them; Christians should know that better than anyone else.

    I assume that that’s the central point. The body sounds like it was written at 2 a.m. by students on controlled substances. Blow my mind and pass the nachos.

Leave a comment!