Letters to the Editor
Slide and glide socially acceptable
Slide and glide occurs because it is socially acceptable. It is socially acceptable because chapel is required, but not always worth it; it is a hoop to jump through and not an opportunity to gain from. To end the slide & glide problem I would make chapels better, that is, make it so instead of complaining about chapel, students discussed it positively and with respect.
First, I would make more chapels about Jesus (that is, preaching from God's word) instead of emphasizing social justice or topical issues. Chapel is about spiritual formation, but too often they could better be described as "social formation" or "moral outrage formation" or even "guilt trip formation." Social justice is a part of what we are called to as Christians, as is figuring out a Biblical approach to everyday issues, but becoming more like Christ should be our first goal, and this occurs when we hear directly from His word on a regular basis.
Second, chapel should end on time all the time. Classes begin all over campus ten minutes after chapel is supposed to get out. Work schedules often have shifts starting five minutes after. If you have to be in Stevens or Villa you cannot be there on time if chapel goes even two minutes over time. These students with these schedules have to watch the clock and sometimes leave before the speaker is done.
Third, give students more ownership of chapel. Have a survey once a semester so students can give input on what they like/don't like and what kinds of speakers they want in the future. Provide break-out chapels (with chapel credit given) for topics that are interesting to a slice of the student body: a speaker on God and science, philosophy and the Bible, gender roles, a series by a religious studies professor going through a certain book of the Bible, etc.
If chapels are high-quality, fit into the schedule, and feel like they are "ours," sliding and gliding will no longer be socially acceptable, and may even become a thing of the past.
Katie BjorkmanGeorge Fox junior
Candidates poll the dead
I heard two strange questions while I was watching the Presidential debates. The strange Republican question: "Why would Ronald Reagan endorse you?" The strange Democratic question: "Why would Martin Luther King, Jr. endorse you?" The candidates answered the questions. Are the Republicans styling themselves as the Ronald Reagan party and the Democrats as the Martin Luther King, Jr. party?
Why would they do that? Maybe they don't feel comfortable with whom they are and so want to pretend to greatness. After all -#8212; that is what they are doing. I bring to your attention the fact that both Ronald Reagan and Martin Luther King, Jr. are dead. Why are presidential candidates of both parties putting words into the mouths of dead men? For all their greatness they remain dead.
The questions and the answers blurred the line between life and death. Were we seeing a channeling on national television? Has Nancy Reagan's fascination with the occult now become a party plank? Let me be perfectly clear about whether or not Martin Luther King, Jr or Ronald Reagan are going to endorse anyone for the 2008 Presidential election : "For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any [thing] that is done under the sun. - Ecclesiastes 9:5-6"
Alfred BrockWayne, MI