Revisions Vol. 3 Issue 1, Fall 2006 by Manna Christian Fellowship, Princeton University

Revisions A Journal of Christian Perspective

vol III, issue 1, fall 2006

Sex is Good

Revisions A Journal of Christian Perspective EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Richard Lopez ‘09 MANAGING EDITORS Li Deng ‘10 Joung Park ‘08 COPY EDITORS Chenxin Jiang ‘09 Craig Schindewolf ‘09 J.D. Walters ‘09 ADVISOR & EDITOR EMERITUS John Montague EDITORS EMERITI The Rev. David H. Kim Andrew Matthews ‘06 David Matthews ‘05 Matthew Nickoloff ‘04 STAFF & CONTRIBUTORS Mary Cheffers ‘08 David Chen ‘05 Cassandra DeBenedetto ‘07 Felix Huang ‘07 Gregory Lee ‘00 Becker Polverini ‘10 David Schaengold ‘07 Opinions expressed in articles do not necessarily reflect the views of the editors or of Manna Christian Fellowship. Manna is a 501(c)(3) corporation. Copyright, 2006. The printing of this journal is made possible by gifts from friends and alumni and by a generous grant from the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. Manna Christian Fellowship PO Box 577, Princeton, NJ 08542 revisionsonline@gmail.com www.revisionsonline.com

From the Editors’ Perspective

Redeeming Sex

aint Augustine once said: “Give me chastity and continence, but not yet.” These words were uttered in the early fifth century, yet today they strangely apply to our lives if we are truly honest with one another. We think we can get away with having another one night stand or find the best sex by dating multiple people, all the while foolishly assuming that it is okay for now because in the future we will “eventually settle down.” How has this complacency set up shop in the recesses of our consciousness? Even if we have deep-seated regret or doubt over a sexual encounter, we dismiss it relatively quickly and try harder to obtain fulfillment in future relationships. How would we respond if someone asked us, “Do you understand sexuality?” This question is one of several with which Walker Percy begins his mock self-help book Lost in the Cosmos. Percy is kind enough to offer his readers a multiple-choice response. His first option is that sexuality is merely a biological drive that is itself a product of evolution and nothing more. Perhaps many of us believe this. Or perhaps we come closer to the “religious-humanistic” view that it is the ultimate expression of love. Or maybe we even think that it is just a unique concern of our contemporary society that has time to think about such things. However, if we give this question some honest thought, we may end up answering “yes” to Percy’s final question: “Or are you more confused about sexuality than any other phenomenon in the Cosmos?” In this issue of Revisions, we tackle the immensely intimidating question of how sexuality can be redeemed to its original purpose in God’s creation. This of course is not an easy task, and we do not claim it to be as such, yet we hope that this diverse collection of articles will be a springboard for effective dialogue between Christians and non-Christians on a topic that requires much more attention in our society. The richness and robustness of a gospel worldview, especially with regards to human sexuality, should not be taken lightly or dismissed as restrictive and callous. On the contrary, we hope that you will come to appreciate that sex is paramount not only to our human, bodily existence, but also to the glory of God. Indeed, the physical act of sex reflects divine realities that we cannot possibly fathom. Sex is the most vulnerable giving (physically, emotionally, and spiritually) of oneself to another human being. If we take this assumption seriously, then sex is really, really important. Not only that; sex is good.

The Mission of Revisions Revisions is an ecumenical journal of Christian thought committed to the process of “faith in search of understanding.” Through re-visioning the world in light of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, we hope to invigorate the intellectual possibility of a worldview centered on the Gospel, both at Princeton University and in the world at large. In developing and articulating distinctively Christian perspectives on the whole of life, we seek to revive the rich Christian tradition of vibrant intellectual engagement with and critical reflection on the social, cultural, philosophical, political, and scientific issues facing a pluralistic university community. Revisions / Fall 2006

Contents vol III, issue 1, fall 2006

Sex is Good Sex: Imitation of the Trinity?.................................................................4

Mary Cheffers

Greeting Courtship with a Kiss.............................................................5

Cassandra DeBenedetto

Consumptive Sex......................................................................................6

David Schaengold

A Christian Case for Gay Marriage?.....................................................8

J.D. Walters

The Nature of Relationships..............................................................10

Craig Schindewolf

Are We “Designed for Sex?”...............................................................11

Becker Polverini

On Mythologies in Romance & Community..................................12

David Chen

Sex & the Crisis of the Human Soul.................................................14

John Montague

“Very few lasting relationships are made in bed. Fantasies may begin and end there; true love does not.” -Dr. Harold Bessell, The Love Test

Features

A Little Lower than the Angels...........................................................................15

J.D. Walters

The Anatomy of Faith.........................................................................................18 Joung Park Evangelicals and Their Enemies..........................................................................22 Gregory Lee The Quiet Death...................................................................................................24 Li Deng Towards a Christian Epistemology.....................................................................25 Richard Lopez Why Christians Should Engage the World......................................................26

The Rev. David H. Kim

Front Cover: “Teenage Wildlife” by Cecily Brown (oil on linen). Image is used courtesy of Contemporary Fine Arts, Berlin (photo: Jochen Littkemann). Photography Credits: Unless otherwise noted, images are taken from public-doman online databases. Page 6, Clifford Mack; Back Cover, John Montague.

Revisions / Fall 2006

Sex: Imitation of the Trinity? Mary Cheffers Through sex, two persons face each other, entirely occupied by loving that other, thereby mirroring the relationship between the Father and the Son.

ex, an imitation of the Trinity? Is this hideously sacrilegious? Or is it part of a deliriously beautiful divine mystery? Yet no matter how crazy it sounds, it is true: the act of sex—the physical bond of union between a man and a woman in the body-and-soul relationship of marriage—mirrors the inner life of the Blessed Trinity. Furthermore, we know that in our friendship with Christ, to mirror Him is to live in Him and to have Him live in us: “I live, now not I, but Christ within me” (Galatians 2:20). So it is with sex, mirroring the Trinity. Sex is not only obedience to God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1: 28); sex is an imitation of, and therefore participation in, the life of God. Our knowledge of the Trinity is part of the Revelation given by Christ. The Gospels have recorded many of Christ’s references to His Father and the Holy Spirit, and this firm and absolute doctrine of the Trinity was laid down in the Apostles’ Creed. Many ancient theologians have pondered the instances where Christ refers to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and have tackled this topic of the Christian faith, not in order to comprehend it entirely, for that feat is beyond man’s ability, but to understand it better through reason, which is not only possible but which is an essential part of living the Christian faith. Much of the Christian understanding about the Trinity comes from St. Thomas Aquinas, who contemplated this glorious mystery and tried to grasp it a little more clearly, so that our awe for The Trinity might be even greater and our love for God even deeper. Aquinas articulated a beautiful analogy that helps us to understand the inner life of the Trinity, which in turn reveals how sex is an imitation of it. In the Trinity there is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The Son of God is also the Word of God, for we read in St. John’s Gospel that “In the beginning there was the Word… and the Word was made flesh” (John 1: 1, 14). But what is the Word? For human beings, a word is first a concept, an idea of knowledge that is formed in the mind and which is given shape when it is uttered. The Word of God, by analogy, is the knowledge of God. Since God is One, all His knowledge and be-

ing is held within this one complete and eternal Word. We also know that the most characterizing attribute of God is his Being (that is, the fact that He is), and that from Him all other things borrow their being. Thus the Word of God also is, and has His own being. He is the Son of God “begotten not made, one in being with the Father” (Nicene Creed). The Father and the Son face each other, completely wrapped up in love for the other. This bond of Love, which exists between the Father and the Son, is also a Person. The Holy Spirit, “who proceeds from the Father and the Son” (Nicene Creed) is this Love, and thus is Love itself: “God is Love” (1 John 4: 8). With this image of the inner life of the Trinity as a guide, we can start to see how sex is a participation in this Trinitarian Life. The man and the woman, united as one, equal in dignity but distinct as persons, are spiritually joined together forever by the grace given in Marriage. Sex is the consummation of that spiritual union. In fact, Marriage is not technically valid unless the couple has sex. Thus body and soul are both joined, “the two become one flesh” (Mark 10:8), and their pathways to heaven are linked in the most intimate way possible on earth. Sex is the act of this true, romantic, holy, sacred love (a love which comes from God). Through sex, two persons face each other, entirely occupied by loving that other, thereby mirroring the relationship between the Father and the Son. And the love that binds man and woman can be the beginning of a new person—a human child—just as in the Trinity the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Love that binds the Father and the Son. This human child is, in a way, the incarnation of the love between a man and a woman. When sex is looked at in this way, we see that it is a sacred, a divinely serious and responsible act, that imitates God in His most intimate life. Sex is an imitation of the Love that is God, a Love that creates. Yes, sex is good, even in the divine sense of the word! When a couple embraces each other, open to new life and with God as their witness, they participate in a profound union that echoes into eternity. f Mary Cheffers ‘08 is a Slavic Languages and Literature major. She is from Lancaster, MA. Revisions / Fall 2006

Greeting Courtship with a Kiss Cassandra DeBenedetto Both men and women long for intimacy - but an intimacy that in addition to being physical has its root in an intimacy that is deep, spiritual, sincere, committed, loving, and unconditional. Such roots are established and strengthened in courtship.

his past November, I had the privilege of speaking to University of Chicago professor Amy Kass. Recalling a class she taught in the mid-1980s, Professor Kass remembered beginning the first day by asking her students what the most important decision they will ever have to make in their lives is. “Deciding which career to pursue,” “Figuring out which graduate or professional school to attend,” “Choosing where I should live,” were among the first answers she received. About twenty students in, one answer changed the course of the discussion: “Deciding who should be the mother of my children.” The young man who said this was immediately verbally attacked by the other women (and men) in the room, who accused him for the offensive stereotype of women he must have in mind to phrase his answer in such a way. “What do you mean by your children?” certain female students in the class asked. Watching the scene take place before her, Professor Kass remembers thinking to herself, “How sad.” How sad, indeed. If we give our friend the benefit of the doubt – assuming he was not implying a woman who would be barefoot and pregnant, confining herself to only the kitchen, laundry room, bathroom, and (let’s not forget) the bedroom – his statement is admirable. This courageous student took relationships, sex, marriage, and family seriously. When one considers how formative childhood is, should we do anything but take seriously choosing with whom we want to raise a family? Furthermore, with marriage intended as a lifelong, exclusive, intimate communion between a man and a woman, should we do anything but take seriously choosing who it is we want to marry and make a life? Certainly, this young man was on the right track. But with so many unstable and broken relationships, marriages and families, it is no wonder so many students react the way they do to the hope of anything better. The reality is that many young people are not only hopelessly cynical about having stable, lasting, loving, and fulfilling relationships and marriages; but they also have no example of what this looks like or what it takes to get there. It was observing this “close to the surface despair” in her students that prompted Professor Kass to take a deeper interest in the topic of dating, marriage, and sex. Years after the above incident, she and her husband, Leon Kass, composed an anthology of classic and contemporary literature on marriage, sex, love, and courtship titled, Wing to Wing, Oar to Oar: Readings on Courting and Marrying. In our conversation, Amy explained Revisions / Fall 2006

to me that the book was an effort to “legitimize marriage.” “I’ve never met [an undergraduate] who did not take himself or herself seriously, or who didn’t take their friendships seriously,” she said. “And it was simply a matter of showing them that marriage had everything to do with the most serious of friendships, and that this [friendship] was possible within marriage.” Understanding that just like anything else, a good marriage requires preparation and practice, the Kasses were sure to include a chapter on courtship, hoping that the readings would allow a re-invention of “new forms of courting based on improved respect between men and women.” But what is courtship, why is it important, and what do these “new forms of courting” look like? Courtship is, essentially, dating – but with the explicit understanding of being directed towards marriage. In other words, courtship is a guide to achieving sincere and faithful friendship between a man and woman, with a recognition that marriage is the culmination of the most serious and most loving of friendships. With marriage in mind, it is easy to understand why courtship is important. Experiences of instability, unfaithfulness, and overall hurt and pain within marriage are far too prevalent today, threatening and tearing apart families. One need only look to the social sciences to see the correlation between marital and familial instability and lower mental and physical health, educational achievement, financial stability, and overall happiness and wellbeing. If you want your best chance at happiness, health, fulfillment, and stability in this life, taking the proper steps towards preparing for and building a good marriage is essential. But how do we go about doing this? If we look back to courtship customs of the past, we see a real emphasis on developing relationships with behaviors and within environments that incline a couple to truly grow in friendship. For example, it is a simple fact that when a person cares about someone else, there is a natural desire and inclination to want to express that affection physically. Parents hold and kiss their infants, we greet our friends and family with hugs and kisses, and even a light touch on someone’s arm or back can be a personal and sincere sign of friendship and affection. Likewise, between a man and woman, physical affection is a good thing; it expresses their developing relationship, a relationship that is on the trajectory to marriage. Of course, the physical affection most expressive

(Article is continued on page 7).

Consumptive Sex David Schaengold “The long-since frigid libertine represents business, while the correct, well-brought-up wife stands yearningly and unromantically for sexuality.” –Adorno, Minima Moralia

T IS NATURAL THAT HUMAN BEINGS SHOULD IGnore the very elements in which they swim through life. Lavoisier’s intellectual achievement really was startling, not because of its complexity as, for instance, Newton’s invention of calculus, but startling in the sense of a man being startled. We are startled by sudden changes in perspective, and the discovery of what we breathe was surely one of the most startling changes in perspective our species has ever experienced. Less startling is the change in perspective I propose, but because it is not centuries old, and because it is an offensive and insulting change, it will be more difficult to accept than Lavoisier’s. It consists in the inversion of a thesis that itself will seem contestable, unless you have dabbled in the occult mysteries of marketing, or the bynow much more harmless mysteries of Marxism. The thesis I intend to invert loses much of its psychological power as soon as it is made explicit. Its effect depends on everyone believing it without ever saying it. Simply put, the notion is that in possessing money, and in spending money, the consumer exercises power over the product and its seller. It is a truism that advertising tries to inculcate certain states of mind or emotion in its audience, and sometimes that state can be a feeling of power. However, this is not the feeling I am addressing here. While the marketing behind some individual products may involve making the consumer feel powerful (protein supplements, Chevys, executive office chairs), the experience of control suffuses all of the rituals surrounding consumer purchases. When you decide to “go shopping,” or even when you merely

decide that you need to purchase a product, you never feel as though you are acting under compulsion. On the contrary, when you make a choice in favor of one particular product over another, you are gratified. Now, my assertion is that this experience is illusory. While the physical and social arrangements of buying something seem to allow the consumer control over the experience, considered broadly, the consumer is reinforcing the control of market mechanisms over his consumption. This may seem obscure and vaguely mystical, but consider if you have ever thought of yourself as a dupe while buying something, no matter how consciously aware you may be of the profound effects of advertising on society and on yourself. Engendering this sense of control in the consumer is crucial for consumption-driven enterprises, because it validates the choices consumers make. Who is actually in control when consumers buy might be a complicated question, but if consumers felt as if they were yielding to a seduction every time they made a purchase, instead of exercising the rational faculty of choice, they would never again spend their cash with consciences perfectly clear. Naturally, this would doom consumer-driven capitalism. As it is, consumers do make most purchases with a good conscience. The sense of control allows the consumer to regard advertising with an open mind, as it were. If it were suspected that advertising really can convince people to do things they wouldn’t otherwise do, the consumer would approach advertisRevisions / Fall 2006

ing warily, instead of trusting his own judgment about consumer products. However, this open-mindedness has profound consequences for individual and social psychology. Because every advertisement implicitly reaffirms the appropriateness and goodness of consumer preferences, the individual feels his consumer preferences, and soon enough all his preferences, inviolate. He resents any attempt to suppress or direct his preferences as a bald attack against liberty. Naturally, one of humanity’s most universal preferences is sexual. We prefer having sex to not having sex. Of course, this is especially true under an economic system that relies on nearly incessant sexual titillation so that consumers will feel the visceral power of sexuality while thinking about products as diverse as laundry detergent and cars, and thus be moved to buy them. In addition, another powerful weapon advertisers have discovered is the use of persistent identity narratives. Humans have always told stories about who they are, of course, through the attempts of individuals to identify themselves with narratives subject to literary conventions, and therefore, narratives exploitable by advertising probably dates from Goethe as a widespread phenomenon. Modern identity narratives, however, are equally the product of our marketers as our inner Werthers. They have evolved as a kind of compromise forever tacit between advertisers and obsessively subjective subjects longing for authenticity, like the disaffected youth who proclaims that he is “tired of having other people try to live my life.” The advertisers do not and cannot create the impulses that originate these identity narratives, like rebellion, the enjoyment of superiority, and loyalty, because they are universally human. They do, however, encourage their accompanying identity impulses that translate best into sales. Hence, our media proclaim the importance of “being yourself,” as if there were any other way to be. And so the consumer comes to believe that any intrusion upon the rights of men and women to be who they are is oppression. He never notices that every “who I am” has its store at the mall. The marketers did not intend to alter our society so profoundly, but they have done so. The modern citizen faces the world with an unshakeable belief in the inviolability of his preferences and the sacrosanctity of his retail-fashioned identity. This belief has contributed more than anything else to our society’s sexual predicament. That our society is in fact in a sexual predicament is almost trivially obvious to me. Though I will not digress at length, a few considerations might suffice to convince someone who disagrees. Consider how sex has become less emotionally significant than asking someone out to lunch. In ages past sex was a consummation of a pre-existing relationship, even when not sanctioned by marriage. Consider the widespread tolerance of date-rape. In ages past no one would have been so perverse as to blame the violated woman. I am not suggesting that ages past men and women were more virtuous. On the contrary, modern sexual behavior is almost a kind of ascetism compared to oldfashioned vice. In fact, reading Rabelais, Cellini, or even the Nouvelle Heloïse will contribute more to the understanding of modern sexuality than innumerable sociological monographs. Those texts, so scandalous in their day, all share a kind of jollity, or at least a Revisions / Fall 2006

happiness (no one every accused Rousseau of being jolly, I suppose) entirely absent from the modern bed. For this reason, the best defense of chastity is not to call it virtuous, or moral. Any attempt by the old codgers, so potent a force in the political debates of all the ages of the world, to muster any real opposition to promiscuity in the name of oldfashioned morality, is doomed, because consumers will not tolerate objections to their preferences. Rational discourse is also useless, because insofar as there ever was a debate about the abandonment of sexual codes, that debate took place decades ago. Students of today inherited a world where the old-fashioned morality is irrelevant. And yet, if we would only look at sex objectively — if we would only tolerate a change in perspective — we would recoil with horror at its present state, not because it is debauched, profligate, or unrighteous, but because it is frigid. Rank sexuality is opposed to sensuality, and in the end even to ordinary sexuality. It is not so much morality that Christians must defend, but sex itself, not from the wastrels and the sinners, but from television and malls. f David Schaengold ‘07 is majoring in political philosophy. He is from Cincinnati, OH.

“Greeting Courtship with a Kiss” (Continued from page 5.)

of a relationship on the way to marriage is different from a relationship that has arrived at marriage. Courtship, moreover, understands the proper context of affection and allows its proper progression to occur. This understanding also provides the needed room for the relationship to be founded and focused on the development and maturing of the friendship (as opposed to the development of physical intimacy). In traditional courtship, men would often “call on” women in their homes. Surely, the contemporary equivalent would likewise seek to develop relationships as much as possible within the context of family. Family, friends, and social settings allow a couple to experience life together, to react to different situations together, and to get to know quite well one another’s dispositions, attitudes, beliefs, habits, virtues, and faults. This establishes the basis upon which they can grow together, build a friendship, and determine whether or not it is a friendship to which they would want to give, in a marital way, for the rest of their lives. So what can be taken away from all this? There is hope. Both men and women long for intimacy – but an intimacy that in addition to being physical, has its root in an intimacy that is deep, spiritual, sincere, committed, loving, and unconditional. Such roots are established and strengthened in courtship. In essence, courtship prepares, guides, and allows one’s spouse to be one’s best friend. I can think of nothing more romantic and hopeful than that. f Cassandra Debenedetto ‘07 is a religion major from Stow, MA. She is also a co-founder of Princeton’s Anscombe Society.

A Christian Case for Gay Marriage? J.D. Walters [The] conversation about homosexuality is far more important and complex than many people realize. It stirs up passions and reactions not worthy of anyone who calls himself a Christian. There are legitimate concerns on both sides, but also superfluous or faulty intuitions on both sides.

o some, the suggestion seems utterly absurd. Never mind arguments over whether stem cell research is immoral, or whether abortion is murder. If there is one seemingly unequivocal judgment in conservative Christian ethics, it is that homosexuality is wrong through and through. Yet, this judgment is not without its controversy. This past November the evangelical world in North America was shocked when Michael Jones revealed that Ted Haggard, pastor at New Life Church and then president of the National Association for Evangelicals, had apparently had a number of drug-fueled sexual encounters with Jones. The suggestion of hypocrisy quickly surfaced because Haggard is a well-known anti-gay marriage activist. There was enormous outrage when the Episcopalian Church elders voted to ordain a gay bishop and bless same-sex marriages in 2003. Catholic teaching continues to affirm that homosexuality is a sin, despite the fact that there are many loyal gay Catholics who struggle to be recognized within the Church. Since so much of our identity is bound up in our sexuality, it is not surprising that Christians take sexual ethics very seriously. According to the New Testament, our bodies are “temples of the Holy Spirit” and we are called to “glorify God with our body” (1 Corinthians 6:20). There are certain things we may do to our bodies which pollute them and thereby dishonor God. Historically, this has included “mundane” misdemeanors such as smoking or a poor diet, but when it comes to sexuality things are much more serious. Sexual intercourse between a man and a woman results in procreation, the first sacred mandate of God to humankind (Genesis 1:28). Marriage between a man and a woman results in their becoming “one flesh” (Genesis 2:24), which the Apostle Paul would later expound is a reflection of the spiritual marriage between Christ and His Bride, which is the Church (2 Corinthians 11:2). Furthermore, sexual relationships are the most intimate relationships shared between human beings, with the potential for great trauma if they are twisted or debased, as in the case of rape, child molestation or even casual “flings” which give momentary fleshly gratification but which then result in heartbreak and depression.1 Clearly, much is at stake in the theological significance of homosexuality, because who we are meant to be as humans is bound up with who God is and His purposes for humanity and Creation. There is no greater honor or responsibility than to be made in the image of God, and it is only as we reflect that image that we will be truly fulfilled and reach our full potential.

The conservative Christian case against homosexuality, to say nothing of gay marriage, is comprehensive and quite damning. First and foremost is an understanding that the Bible categorically condemns homosexual practices. Christians point to the biblical stories of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Leviticus purity codes, Jesus’ sexual ethics (Mark 10:6-9) and the indictments of the Apostle Paul (Romans 1:27; 1 Corinthians 6:9) as clear evidence that homosexuality has no place in the Kingdom of God. Aside from the Scriptural argument, Christians have argued that homosexuality is unnatural from a biological point of view, that homosexuals are driven purely by lust, that homosexuals are more prone to suicide, depression and sexually transmitted diseases than heterosexuals, that homosexuality threatens the institution of marriage and that children raised by homosexual parents are deprived of the balanced upbringing which comes from having both a mother and a father.2 Christians also point to an unsavory image in the media of transvestitism and excessively effeminate men. Above all these claims, however, the Scriptural indictment stands apart. The bottom line for many conservative Christians is that homosexuality in any form is sin and abomination, for which God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and may yet do the same to America for tolerating it.3 However, what if this comprehensive case is wrong, not just in some details but in general outline? In their book What God Has Joined Together? A Christian Case for Gay Marriage, psychologists David Myers and Letha Scanzoni argue that, rather than weaken or desecrate the sacred institution of marriage, extending gay marriage rights to homosexuals would actually strengthen the institution.4 It is a bold and ambitious book, especially considering the weight of the case against homosexuality. The book touches deep wells of emotion and tries to expose prejudice that prevents rational discussion. Though the authors are concerned to make a positive case for gay marriage, the goal of encouraging civil discussion is the main aim of the book. They insist that “The discussion we propose is not about winning arguments…We bring to the discussion the conclusions we have reached, asking only that our readers be open to listening and to considering what we ourselves have been learning – and continue to learn.”5 They are anxious to affirm that, far from being liberal “compromisers” they take their faith very seriously. Their case for gay marriage is presented in two parts: first, they argue that marriage as a sacred institution is a healthy thing for society as opposed to co-habitation or casual relationships, which are correlated with unhappiness, depression and other Revisions / Fall 2006

ills.6 Second, they argue that extending marriage rights to homosexual couples would significantly strengthen the institution of marriage in society.7 In between these two mains parts they provide a brief survey of human sexuality from biological and psychological perspective, addressing such questions as whether homosexuality is a lifestyle preference or biologically-rooted and how feasible it might be to change sexual orientation.8 They also examine the biblical case against homosexuality, both the specific passages which deal with the issue and the overall “creation ethic” of the Bible from which the Christian view of marriage is derived.9 It is hard to come away from this book still thinking that homosexuals are more promiscuous, lust-driven and prone to depression or suicide than anyone else. The authors give examples of homosexual couples who are fiercely committed to one another to the extent of putting many “normal” couples to shame, living together for decades even though they cannot legally marry.10 Such couples often adopt abandoned or abused children in order to give them a better life, which cannot but honor God’s mandate to be fruitful and multiply.11 The data which the authors cite on homosexuality in nature demonstrate that, while it is not nearly as widespread as many gay activists suggest, it occurs both in humans and other animals in sufficient variety and frequency so as to raise the question of whether it is really “unnatural.”12 That, together with findings that demonstrate the biological roots of sexual orientation in general, suggests that homosexuality is not something which people can choose. As noted above, for many Christians the decisive factor in their decision is the verdict of Scripture. The authors examine most of the “proof-texts” used to condemn homosexuality and conclude that such passages for the most part do not have loving, committed homosexual relationships in view.13 For example, the practice of “sodomy” for which God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah most likely referred to homosexual rape by means of which one man demonstrated his power over another.14 The Apostle Paul’s condemnation of homosexuality, in the context of his general condemnation of sexual immorality, most likely referred to male-male pederasty, in which older men would keep young boys as sexual partners.15 The Leviticus purity laws against homosexuality seem to refer to any kind of homosexual relationship, but Christians are hardly bound by all or even most of those regulations anymore. Do the authors make a convincing case? I’m not so sure. They themselves acknowledge that they are unlikely to convince many people and that their case is open to revision or challenge. With that said, I think the authors soundly demonstrate that the common Christian view of homosexuality is a stereotype and caricature, and that the Scriptural case is not nearly as clearcut as many Christians think. Furthermore the evidence of gay Christians who otherwise demonstrate all the fruits of the spirit and are sincerely devoted to Christ gives me pause. Why should they not be welcomed into the community of believers, receive communion and be married, just like any other faithful believer? The authors make the point that at the root of the sanctity of marriage is the fact that God has made us to be in loving relationship with one another and himself. Why should not such loving relationships exist among people with attraction for the same sex? The main point that I took home from the book, however, is Revisions / Fall 2006

that the conversation about homosexuality is far more important and complex than many people realize. It stirs up passions and reactions not worthy of anyone who calls themselves Christian. There are legitimate concerns on both sides, but there are also superfluous or faulty intuitions on both sides. While conservatives may often caricature homosexuals, those who argue for accepting same-sex marriage are often driven by the empty rhetoric of “progress,” “diversity,” and “tolerance” and do not appreciate that these ideals are not ends in themselves. Christians should not accept progress for the sake of progress, or diversity for the sake of diversity. Pro-gay activists are usually too quick to invoke the “love ethic” of Jesus, without an appreciation of just how radical and counter-intuitive Jesus’ love really is. I can only recommend this book, not just to Christians but to anyone who’s interested in a lucid, informative discussion of sexual orientation. Agree or not, the authors make a clear, passionate, thought-provoking case. What’s more, they make it from a distinctly Christian perspective, which may come as a surprise to those who hold a monolithic view of Christian attitudes towards marriage and relationship. I heartily endorse the main theological principle behind their argument, which was also that of the reformers of the 16th Century: we are to be “reformed and ever reforming by the Word of God,” who is Jesus. We are fallible, limited human beings. At its best Christianity is a bold, questioning religion, of which this book is excellent evidence. I hope that even those who do not come from a Christian perspective will follow the authors’ lead. f J.D. Walters ‘09 plans to major in religion with a certificate in neuroscience. He is very interested in the dialogue between theology and science, especially with respect to human nature. For further reflections on casual sex, see David Kim, Schizophrenic Sex, available online at <http://www.revisionsjournal.com> 1

David Myers and Letha Scanzoni, What God has joined together? A Christian case for gay marriage (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2005), 119-129 2

The link between apocalyptic expectations and condemnation of homosexuality is not coincidental. Many evangelicals point to passages where Jesus describes the state of the world in the end-times (e.g. Luke 17:28-30) as including homosexuality as one of the reasons God will judge the world in power. 4 It is important to clarify what kind of homosexual relationships the authors have in mind. They make it very clear that they are only arguing for loving, committed homosexual relationships with two partners who truly and deeply love each other, not casual flings or any form of perversion (of course, for many Christians any homosexual act is a perversion, but that is the issue of controversy here) 5 Myers and Scanzoni, xii. 6 Ibid., 11-51. 7 Ibid., 114-130. 8 Ibid., 52-83. 9 Ibid., 84-113. 10 Ibid., 106. 11 Ibid., 123. 12 Ibid., 60. Note that for Christians, just because a behavior or condition is found in nature doesn’t mean that it is normative in the context of God’s plan for Creation, because of our “fallen” condition. 13 Ibid., 84. 14 Ibid., 88. 15 Ibid., 93-95. 3

The Nature of Relationships Craig Schindewolf Does one’s love toward me create the motive for or determine the degree of the love I give? Should it?

n this day it seems the survival of relationships depends on reciprocation. �� Experience seems to inform� �� us that affection�� s�� can be characterized as�� either one-way or two-way. Although �� it�� typically applies to the two-way scenario, I�� ’�� ll use the word �� “�� relationship�� ”�� to identify loving affections that one person has towards another person, not necessarily romantic. A �� two-way relationship, specifically one in which each person puts the other before his or herself, seems more likely to bring satisfaction�� to the person involved�� .�� The�� benefits one receives from a two-way relationship are significant, chiefly love. Even so, what do we enjoy in being �� loved, and wh�� at�� do we enjoy �� in giving love? Although I raise this question about the nature of love as it relates to relationships, I’d like to return to the immediate subject: the nature of relationships. Two-way relationships are decidedly satisfying (even if not all the time, they �� are�� when genuinely two-way), and this seems to be at least due to the two-way reception�� of love. Significantly, it seems one can also experience joy loving in the one-way relationship, though not enjoying equivalent benefits of the type he (or she) gives to the other person. But this person’s description is like that of the person in the two-way relationship��; both commit �� to the�� ir�� respective relationships�� the same thing�� : love. The only difference between these two individuals is that the person in the two-way relationship receives the bonus of reciprocation. �� Even so, d�� oes �� the�� person in the two-way relationship love because he, in turned, is loved, or is not the exemplary two-way relationship rather that �� in which each person gives without the prior condition nor perhaps even the expectation of reciprocated love? I would answer yes to the latter question. What this means then, is that both the person in the one-way relationship and the person in the two-way relationship love in exactly the same way: they love without the presence of the other’s love already there and without expecting it in return. The �� two-way relationship may be preferable over the one-way relationship, but as I hope to have now shown, this preference need not affect the motive�

nor�� the degree of love that is expressed towards another�� person��. Restated,�� the ideal �� or �� true lover loves (and likely enjoys loving) all regardless of whether any love will be returned to him. He may enjoy the benefits of returned love, but they cannot be the motive for his love�� nor affect the degree of his love; otherwise he would not be the ideal lover. If this doesn’t seem right, think once more about the person in the one-way relationship: is he either less free or obligated to love because he does not experience love in return? Consider the ideal lover: God, who “is love” (1 John 4:8). He loved in the one-way relationship as much as he loves those who now enter into the twoway relationship with him: “We love because he first loved us” (1 John 4:19). If this is true, what is the implication for human relationships such as, say, marriage? I think that if what I’ve written holds, then the ideal marriage is one in which the spouses love as God loved us while we were yet sinners (Romans 5:8). However, if a marriage rests upon what one receives from it, it is on a shakier foundation tha�� n�� one that rests on �� the �� selfless commitment of each person to the other. In the ideal scenario, where both people selflessly (but not necessarily joylessly) love the other, marriage will Image courtesy of Russell Gilbert © in fact be enjoyable, as each person devotes himself to loving and satisfying the other. Marriage is in fact unique among two-way relationships because from the beginning of creation, God prescribed it for humans when he paired Eve with Adam, and it is a metaphor for Christ’s relationship with Christians: “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Ephesians 5:25). Indeed, marriage may be the culmination of two-way relationships, but after finishing this article, I am led to believe that it is at heart two one-way relationships. f Craig Schindewolf ‘09 is from southern New Jersey. He plans to major in molecular biology. Revisions / Fall 2006

Are We “Designed for Sex?” Becker Polverini Christians have a comprehensive worldview grounded in the gospel, conferring great meaning to sex and allowing it to bcome the greatest possibility for truly “knowing” another human being.

here is nothing like a solid discussion of incest, child pornography, masturbation, homosexuality, casual sex, strap-ons, suicide, and dildos to attract one’s attention. This past September, Dr. Budziszewski, a professor of Government and Philosophy at the University of Texas, Austin, gave a talk sponsored by Princeton’s Anscombe Society entitled “Designed for Sex.” Covering everything from middle-aged men looking up child pornography on the Internet, to girls cutting themselves over the loss of a sex partner, he considered no abnormal sexual activity taboo. Budziszewski, an accomplished writer and speaker of ethics and natural law philosophy, advocated that a natural law-based sexuality is the best and most fruitful sexuality. Budziszewski presented the natural law argument from the precarious “designer” approach, albeit in non-theistic terms. Absent any particular God or higher-power or spiritual force, Budziszewski advocated that the construction of our bodies and the way in which sexual organs appear to be “designed” alludes to the way ideal sex should be. The sexual organs in human beings are no different from the nearly self-evident purpose of the heart and lungs. The sex organs cannot be interpreted simply in the eye of the beholder, because the design of an object is an inherent attribute, regardless of how one uses the object. For example, it is no coincidence that a penis happens to be most functional with a vagina. Taken further, homosexuality, not accessing the full “utility” of the sexual organs, would seem to be a flawed adaptation of nature’s intent. Diving right into the “true” purpose of sex, Budziszewski claimed that creation of life forms the crux of sexual experience, with pleasure only as a byproduct. The unifying nature of sex, constituting an intensely intimate and physical union between a man and a woman, sacredly defines itself apart from all other human experience. The end result and arguably the true goal of such a union is reproduction, and marriage must remain the only human institution capable of granting true functionality of sex as the means of procreation through a sharing of respect between two people. But many people do not view sex in this light. Indeed, many people in our society interpret sexuality on their own terms. “We want to transcend our own nature, like gods,” said Budziszewski. “We want to pick and choose among the elements of our sexual design, enjoying just the pieces that we want and not the others. Some people pick and choose one element, others pick and choose another, but they share the illusion that they can pick and choose.” Revisions / Fall 2006

Ultimately, that Budziszewski’s argument is tough and against the grind seems almost self-evident given the way society wears sexuality on its sleeve. Knowledge about sex, the number of times someone has done it, and the casualness with which one discusses sex all comprise features of a societal measuring stick for “sexual maturity.” Does this seem right given the nature or design of our bodies? Pornography is a billion dollar industry Budziszewski and divorce rates probably will not decline any time soon. Often Christians tend to be first in citing these “doomsday statistics,” and when they do so many people criticize Christians of exaggeration or sheer callousness. Nonetheless, the proof is in the numbers and the severity of these trends should not be passed off as trite. The purpose of sex must be as objective as evaluating data, taking feelings or pleasures into account only perpetuates the emotivism that has obfuscated its original value. Nature tells us what we need to know to sexually flourish, just like the laws of physics and science can be determined through observation. The impact of this philosophy means an entirely different context in which to engage in sexual activity. Masturbation, pornography, incest, and anything other than sex in the context of marriage eviscerate the uniqueness of meaningful sexual experience, where passion is focused toward another person and not inward. Budziszewski steered away from the Christian approach to sexuality, but it is no coincidence that his “ideal” sexuality within a God-free framework resembles Christian sexuality. To conclude, while Budziszewski tried to use philosophical theory and scientific methods of observation to prove his point, Christians have a unique advantage over the existentialist attempting to justify natural law morality. Christians have a comprehensive worldview grounded in the gospel, conferring great meaning to sex and allowing it to become the greatest possibility for truly “knowing” another being. f Becker Polverini ‘10 plans to major in mechanical and aerospace engineering. He is from Huntington Beach, CA.

On Mythologies in Romance and Community David Chen When we speak about the “perfect girl” or the “ideal guy,” we have already perverted our search for love into a quest for a holy grail.

ne of the most profound words OF wisdom I’ve heard about love came from my roommate. I had been describing to him all of the dazzling and inspiring characteristics of a certain person I was attracted to, and after some careful thought he said, “I wonder if sometimes we fall more in love with our perceptions than the person.” A myth is born when our belief in its truth becomes more important than the truth itself. Most often we find myths at work in the way we understand the grand themes of faith and life. We want rational explanations for both the bizarre and the mundane. We want life to be profound and meaningful, but we also want it to be something we can interpret, perhaps even something we can manipulate. We actively seek to denounce myths in our beliefs of God but seldom realize their manifestations in our affections for other people, romantically as well as communally. Romantically speaking, I tend to be attracted to a woman’s beauty, passion, and character. I’m attracted to her as long as she remains these things to me. But when reality begins to contradict the myths, the attraction evaporates. I find myself disillusioned: inexplicably betrayed by something I vaguely suspect had never been promised to me in the first place. When we speak about the “perfect girl” or the “ideal guy,” we have already perverted our search for love into a quest for a holy grail. Hollywood and the hapless hopes of the heart play effectively on these ambitions, convincing us that, somewhere out there, we can find the mortal incarnation of kindness or charm or depth or love. Romance paints people as stereotypes with exceptions, virtues with occasional flaws. But which of us can stand up to such crushing expectations?

Dietrich Bonhoeffer offers a piercing perspective on love; one that I was surprised to find in his classic study of Christian community, Life Together: There is a human love of one’s neighbor. Such passion is capable of prodigious sacrifices. Often it far surpasses genuine Christian love in fervent devotion and visible results. It speaks the Christian language with overwhelming and stirring eloquence. But it is what Paul is speaking of when he says: ‘And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned’—in other words, though I combine the utmost deeds of love with the utmost of devotion— ‘and have not charity [that is, the love of Christ], it profiteth me nothing’ (I Cor. 13:3). Human love is directed to the other person for his own sake, spiritual love loves him for Christ’s sake. Therefore, human love seeks direct contact with the other person; it loves him not as a free person but as one whom it binds to itself. It wants to gain, to capture by every means; it uses force. It desires to be irresistible, to rule… Human love makes itself an end in itself. It creates of itself an end, an idol which it worships, to which it must subject everything. It nurses and cultivates an ideal, it loves itself, and nothing else in the world. Spiritual love, however, comes from Jesus Christ, it serves him alone; it knows that it has no immediate access to other persons.1 Bonhoeffer’s distinction between “human love” and “spiritual Revisions / Fall 2006

love” is not a new concept. Neither is that of idolatrous or mythological love. But let us encourage one another to periodically examine our relationships—romantic or otherwise—to see if they have become perverted by dark desires and unreasonable expectations. Let us examine our extravagant sacrifices and noble ambitions to see if they are really self-serving manifestations of human love, and let us remind each other that the distinction between human and spiritual love is not always a clear one. Consider community. I like to think of my friendships as a network of genuine relationships built on a foundation of unconditional love. This is easy for me to believe when I am among familiar faces. But when I am alone, I must ask myself how utilitarian my “friendships” really are. I look for a love that is unconditional yet find that I favor people conditionally. I look for something worthy of noble and chivalrous desires yet find my own sentiments to be self-seeking and base. I am ashamed to say that when I walk into a room full of people, I often begin classifying them into the dichotomies of preferable and nonpreferable, friendly and unfriendly, likeable and unlikable. Even date-able and un-date-able! It’s easy for me to treat people as disposable commodities. If I need an encouragement, I go to X with a frown on my face; if I need a guilt trip, I chat with Person Y; if I need to vent frustration, I unwind with Z. But if I don’t provoke the “right” response from any one of them, all is not lost. Surely one of the other letters in the alphabet will respond in a way that panders to my self-esteem. Sometimes I wonder if I am being too harsh on myself. Am I over-thinking the concept of community? Is such brutal selfexamination merely an expression of insecurity? Am I simply afraid to let others love me? Perhaps. I often let insecurity dictate my relationships. But that is no explanation for my tendency to avoid certain clingy, needy, malformed people. It doesn’t explain why I gravitate towards the friendly, the powerful, the beautiful, and the intelligent. Insecurity is an insufficient explanation for the high expectations I place on my community or for my tireless efforts to mold them into people I find more tolerable and acceptable. Bonhoeffer described me well when he wrote: He who loves his dream of a community more than the Christian community itself becomes a destroyer of the latter, even though his personal intentions may be ever so honest and earnest and sacrificial. God hates visionary dreaming; it makes the dreamer proud and pretentious. The man who fashions a visionary ideal of community demands that it be realized by God, by others, and by himself. He enters the community of Christians with his demands, sets up his own law, and judges the brethren and God Himself accordingly. He stands adamant, a living reproach to all others in the circle of brethren. He acts as if he is the creator of the Christian community, as if his dream binds men together. When things do not go his way, he calls the effort a failure. When his ideal picture is destroyed, he sees the community going to smash. So he becomes, first an accuser of his brethren, then an accuser of God, and finally the despairing accuser of himself.2 I am constantly rebuked by scripture for my selfishness in attempting to pick and choose whom I want to associate with or whom I want to learn from. Scripture reminds me that once I am Revisions / Fall 2006

a part of a community, each and every person becomes a visceral part of my new identity, whether I find it “preferable” or not (Romans 12:3-8). It is not for me to dictate how a community should operate; what kind of people should be installed as leaders over me; or whom I should serve. Instead, I am called to develop a grateful spirit and a sense of indisposable community: the radical notion that the presence of each person is both sacred and indispensable. Not only must I learn to sacrifice my preference for individuals, but my mythological ideals for romantic community at large. But how will I know what spiritual love is like? Whom can I love – and be loved by – without fear of crushing him or her with the weight of my unreasonable, human love? Whom can I trust to correct the errors that are certain to exist in the context of romance and community? The answer is: who else but Christ himself? Christ, the ultimate mediator between God and man, also stands as the perfect mediator between the believers: As only Christ can speak to me in such a way that I may be saved, so others, too, can be saved only by Christ himself. This means that I must release the other person from every attempt of mine to regulate, coerce, and dominate him with my love. The other person needs to retain his independence of me; to be loved for what he is, as one for whom Christ became man, died, and rose again, for whom Christ bought forgiveness of sins and eternal life. Because Christ has long since acted decisively for my brother, before I could begin to act, I must leave him his freedom to be Christ’s; I must meet him only as the person that he already is in Christ’s eyes. This is the meaning of the proposition that we can meet others only through the mediation of Christ. Human love constructs its own image of the other person, of what he is and what he should become. It takes the life of the other person into its own hands. Spiritual love recognizes the true image of the other person which he has received from Jesus Christ; the image that Jesus Christ himself embodied and would stamp upon all men … Human love lives by uncontrolled and uncontrollable dark desires; spiritual love lives in the clear light of service ordered by the truth. Human love produces human subjection, dependence, constraint; spiritual love creates freedom of the brethren under the Word. Human love breeds hot-house flowers; spiritual love creates the fruits that grow healthily in accord with God’s good will in the rain and storm and sunshine of God’s outdoors. The existence of any Christian life together depends on whether it succeeds at the right time in bringing out the ability to distinguish between a human ideal and God’s reality, between spiritual and human community.3 f David Chen ‘05 graduated from the Department of Electrical Engineering and is currently attending medical school. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together (New York: Harper & Row, 1954), 33-35. 2 Ibid., 27-28. 3 Ibid., 33-37. 1

Sex & the Crisis of the Human Soul John Montague Sex is the ultimate act of de-alienation. It is a reckless act of selfabandon in which we attempt to overcome the gap in our souls by joining our bodies together.

t a reflective moment in the middle of the 1998 war film The Thin Red Line, Private Witt asks Sergeant Welsh, “Do you ever feel lonely?” Welsh answers, “Only around people.” Witt appears to ponder this for a moment and then repeats softly, as if in benediction, “Only around people.” The sentiment that Welsh expresses is the crisis of the human soul: alienation. Alienation is the profound sense that, although we may surround ourselves by people at all times, we will always be alone. The sense that there is something—an infinite gulf—that will always separate us from even those closest to us and that will always leave us feeling misunderstood and empty. Because we are humans, we cannot accept this inevitability, and so we throw ourselves at it, not realizing that in our attempt to bridge the gulf between human souls, we are in truth hurling ourselves into an endless chasm. Or perhaps we do realize that all our actions to overcome the spaces between each other are doomed to failure and yet we persist, either because we possess Freud’s instinct of destruction or perhaps simply because we see no other option. There is no way out. Sex is the ultimate act of de-alienation. It is a reckless act of self-abandon in which we attempt to overcome the gap in our souls by joining our bodies together. It is a vain attempt to defy the loneliness in our hearts by becoming as close as physically possible to another human being. We literally throw our bodies at each other, acting out a profound metaphysical desperation in physical space. Yet we often end up not with satisfaction but with deeper longing, with anger, and with hurt. The false intimacy simply makes us more painfully aware of the true sense of our alienation and our aloneness. Why? Why must there be this deep longing? Why is love so painful? Why are we never content? Saint Augustine who, early in his life, spent years indulging the lusts of his flesh, diagnosed the problem very clearly at the beginning of his Confessions: “[B]ecause you [God] made us for yourself and our hearts find no peace until they rest in you.”1 The root cause of our alienation is separation from the divine. The act of sin brought alienation into the world as it severed the connection between humans and God. Sex is more than simply pleasure and it is also more than just a tool for procreation. Both of these views of sex belittle God’s intention for this beautiful act. Sex is the imitation of divine unity. It is a foreshadowing of the union between Christ and the church. Jesus repeatedly compares the fulfillment of God’s

plan to a wedding feast, and Paul uses numerous illustrations from marriage in his letters to the early church. Sex does not have to leave us with a deeper sense of alienation than we had before; it does not have to leave us feeling empty and unfulfilled. The promise of sex is union: the union between man and woman mirroring the union between Christ and the church. The idea of union suggests the impossibility of separation, and this is where sex falls short—and especially sex outside of the context of marriage. In a real sense, sex does unite two people physically, but it is only in the metaphysical context of marriage that this union has any promise. The promise of unity is continuity, faithfulness, and the idea that the people involved can rest secure in the love they share. If we will be honest with ourselves, we will admit that this unity is what we really desire. The unity we seek is, as W.H. Auden put it, “Not universal love / But to be loved alone.” We are not satisfied with just a taste; we want the whole thing. All this is not to say that sex—even sex properly placed within a faithful marriage—will grant us the peace for which our souls long. Humans are sinful and will repeatedly fail us. The alienation will persist as long as we continue to sin against each other and against God. Part of this sin is the refusal to admit that our soul’s true desire is not for sex or for human companionship but for God. This sin is destructive not only because it denies God’s proper place in our lives but also because it places unrealistic expectations on our human relationships. Humans fail and if we place our hopes in them, our hopes will fail, leaving us again in despair. Sex is good, but it is not ultimate. It is the greatest act of human unity, and our desire for it reflects our yearning to overcome the alienation that is our common affliction, yet it will always— even in the ideal marriage—leave us with only a shadow of that which is to come. However, we should take hope. If the shadow is as good as sex in the marriage union was intended to be, then the reality—union with Christ—must be very good indeed. f John Montague is on staff with Manna Christian Fellowship. He graduated from the University of Virginia in 2003 with a degree in economics and philosophy, and he currently works for an industrial supply company in the Princeton area. Saint Augustine, Confessions, trans. R.S. Pine Coffin (New York: Penguin Books, 1961), 21. 1

Revisions / Fall 2006

A Little Lower than the Angels J.D. Walters “When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him? Yet you have made him a little lower than the angels and crowned him with glory and honor. You have given him dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under his feet.” -Psalm 8:3-6

he great Christian apologist and journalist G.K. Chesterton believed that nothing was more important for a person than to have a well-defined worldview. He insisted that “if…there is to be mental advance, it must be mental advance in the construction of a definitive philosophy of life. And that philosophy of life must be right and the other philosophies wrong.”1 His rationale for this assertion was simple and compelling: “Ideas are dangerous, but the man to whom they are least dangerous is the man of ideas. He is acquainted with ideas, and moves among them like a liontamer. Ideas are dangerous, but the man to whom they are most dangerous is the man of no ideas. The man of no ideas will find the first idea fly to his head like wine to the head of a teetotaler.”2 Examples of the latter are only too common in our day and age. New Age and self-help books sell by the millions, and the absurd theories of The Da Vinci Code are enthusiastically embraced by millions of people with no concrete idea of what the Bible or history really have to say about Jesus Christ or Mary Magdalene. In an age where, in E.O. Wilson’s words, “we are drowning in information, but starving for wisdom,” it is clearly more important than ever to acknowledge the presuppositions and prejudices which we take for granted and make some effort toward formulating a positive philosophy of life for ourselves.3 Revisions / Fall 2006

Any substantial worldview must include a theory of human nature, because how we view ourselves will tremendously impact how we live our lives, how we relate to others, and in the end how happy we will be and whether or not we achieve our true potential. In their book Ten Theories of Human Nature, Leslie Stevenson and David L. Haberman note four essential features of all theories of human nature: they make claims about the nature of the universe as a whole; they provide a description of the essential nature of human beings; they offer a diagnosis of what goes wrong with human life and human kind; and they provide a solution to the problems.4 Unless the theory more or less matches up to human experience, it will be discarded or at least disputed. Because views about the nature of the universe have direct implications for their descriptions of human beings, it is not unreasonable to suggest that we can learn something about the nature of the universe by observing human beings. As C.S. Lewis points out, “We want to know whether the universe simply happens to be what it is for no reason or whether there is a power behind it that makes it what it is. Since that power, if it exists, would be not one of the observed facts but a reality which makes them, no mere observation of the facts can find it. There is only one case in which we can know whether there is anything more, namely our own case.”5

There is one facet of human experience which I think speaks strongly to the truth of the Christian theory of human nature that human beings are made in the image of God. What is amazing about this attribute of human nature is that it is affirmed by one of Christianity’s most vocal despisers in modern times, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins. In his celebrated popular science book The Selfish Gene after passionately arguing for the pervasive influence of genetic selection in all aspects of human experience, with the conclusion that some of our most despicable traits are “hardwired” into our genetic makeup, he concludes with this surprising statement: We have the power to defy the selfish genes of our birth…We can even discuss ways of deliberately cultivating and nurturing pure, disinterested altruism— something that has no place in nature, something that has never existed before in the whole history of the world. We are built as gene machines…but we have the power to turn against our creators. We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators (emphasis added).6 It is widely believed that Darwin’s theory of evolution precludes any special role for human beings, who are after all only social, naked apes adapted to life on the African savanna. Darwin himself emphasized continuity between human beings and all other life, especially with regard to our closest simian “relatives,” namely the apes, baboons, chimpanzees, bonobos, and orangutans. He and many subsequent thinkers strenuously denied any claims that human beings were unique in any way, either in their essence or their abilities. However, in the quote above from one of Darwin’s most passionate defenders we seem to have a profound statement of human uniqueness which echoes those of many other modern Christian writers concerning the place of man in an evolutionary view of life. G.K. Chesterton once wrote, “We talk of wild animals; but man is the only wild animal. It is man that has broken out. All other animals are tame animals; following the rugged respectability of tribe or type. All other animals are domestic animals; man alone is ever undomestic, either as profligate or a monk.”7 Similarly C.S. Lewis observed: Thousands of centuries ago huge, very heavily armored creatures were evolved. If anyone had at the time been watching the course of Evolution he would probably have expected that it was going to go on to heavier and heavier armor. But he would have been wrong. The future had a card up its sleeve which nothing at that time would have led him to expect. It was going to spring on him little, naked, unarmored animals who had better brains: and with those brains they were going to master the planet…The next step was not only going to be different, but different with a new kind of difference.8 Natural human ability to navigate the natural world can seem very limited when compared with that of other species. We see in only a small band of the electromagnetic spectrum; bats use sonar to navigate and some eels use electric currents. Dogs can use the faintest scent from a bit of clothing to find a person trapped in a mine or up on a mountain, while our own sense of smell is atrophied even when compared to our fellow primates. Birds navigate the globe during migration periods with astonishing accuracy and coordination. We are certainly not the strongest

of animals. Our most graceful athletes pale in comparison to the elegant, powerful, muscular form of a cheetah. The average ape is several times stronger than the average human. Yet for all this human beings are now masters of the Earth. We do not need to see in the infrared or ultraviolet. Our instruments accomplish that for us. We can navigate any part of the globe, not just during migration periods, thanks to GPS technology. It is telling that humans always train dogs to do their sniffing for them and not the other way around. Why is it that we are able to understand and control the world around us in such a profound way? The secular scientist will try to account for this in terms of the acquisition of language, an increase in brain size or evolving an opposable thumb, allowing us to make tools. All this certainly plays a part in the explanation, but it brings us no closer to an answer of how the human mind can learn the truth about the world and engage in rational inference. Creatures evolve by acquiring various phenotypic traits via random mutations or DNA copying errors, and if these traits make the organism more “fit” to survive and reproduce, these traits are selected for. The problem is that organisms do not need to be able to form true beliefs about the world, except in the most pragmatic sense, in order to survive and reproduce. As evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson puts it, “Before Darwin, the human ability to know…could be explained as a gift from God. After Darwin, numerous philosophers and biologists tried to place epistemology on an evolutionary foundation by saying that the ability to know is adaptive...This argument has an element of truth...However, there are many, many other situations in which it can be adaptive to distort reality. Even massively fictitious beliefs can be adaptive, as long as they motivate behaviors which are adaptive in the real world.”9 Science is often vaunted by skeptics as a superior form of knowledge. According to the widely accepted myth, scientific knowledge dispels the religious superstitions of our past, leading the human race to true enlightenment. But by the materialist’s account of the origin of life and intelligence, it is doubtful that we should be able to acquire that kind of scientific knowledge in the first place. The atheist philosopher Daniel Dennett calls the idea of natural selection the best idea that anyone ever had, ranking it above the achievements of Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein.10 But by Darwin’s own account of the origin of the human mind, we should not be here discussing this amazing idea in the first place: “Can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions?”11 Cognitive psychologist Justin Barrett is more explicit about this difficulty of the materialist: Though some cognitive scientists assume that because our brains and their functions have been ‘designed’ by natural selection we can trust them to tell us the truth, such an assumption is epistemologically dubious. Just because we can successfully survive and reproduce in no way ensures that our minds as a whole tell us the truth about anything—especially when it comes to sophisticated thinking…what a completely naturalistic view of the human mind may safely embrace is that our minds were good for survival in the past.12 The Christian has a better explanation for our scientific achieveRevisions / Fall 2006

ments (not necessarily by denying the evolutionary account, but by going beyond it). Human beings are made in the image of God, ordained to have dominion over the earth and subdue it. As such, we partake—in however small a degree—of the divine Reason (Logos) that created the Universe and made it fruitful. According to sociologist Rodney Stark, it was precisely this belief which led to the rise of science in the first place: The rise of science was not an extension of classical learning. It was the natural outgrowth of Christian doctrine: Nature exists because it was created by God. In order to love and honor God, it is necessary to fully appreciate the wonders of his handiwork. Moreover, because God is perfect, his handiwork functions in accord with immutable principles. By the full use of our God-given powers of reason and observation it ought to be possible to discover these principles. These crucial religious ideas were why the rise of science occurred in Christian Europe, not somewhere else.13 This belief of such devoutly religious scientists as Galileo Galilei, Johannes Kepler, and Isaac Newton has been repaid many times over in a spectacular increase in our scientific knowledge, including the theory of evolution. I believe that this points to the truth of the Christian theory of human nature. This is not to suggest that we are perfectly wise or all-knowing. True, “[t]he fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,” but “the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick: who can understand it?” (Ps. 111:10, Jer. 17:9). Because our minds are a product of our fallen nature, we should expect them to mislead us and fail to see the truth most of the time, were it not for the grace of God. The materialistic view of the person, however, can only end in radical skepticism about our ability to obtain true knowledge about the world. As G.K. Chesterton observes, “It is idle to talk always of the alternative of reason and faith. Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all. If you are merely a skeptic, you must sooner or later ask yourself the question, ‘Why should anything go right; even observation and deduction? Why should not good logic be as misleading as bad logic?’ They are both movements in the brain of a bewildered ape.”14 There are other aspects of observed human experience which point to the truth of the Christian worldview, including a unique sense of right and wrong, the creative impulse15 and a deep-seated longing for a joy which no earthly experience can truly satisfy.16 Suffice it to say that even though we are products of the process of evolution, we are also the odd one out in the animal world, infused as we are by the Spirit of God with all the gifts that we use and misuse to create all the wonders of civilization that surround us daily. Finally, if we see that the Christian theory of human nature matches up to our experience, it also

Revisions / Fall 2006

makes sense to pay attention to the Christian diagnosis of our condition, namely sin, and also to accept the offered cure, namely belief in the atoning death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. A famous evolutionary biologist once said that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”17 To that I would add that nothing about the human condition makes sense except in the light of Christianity, and I can only agree wholeheartedly with C.S. Lewis’ conclusion about why he embraced the Christian worldview: “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen; not only because I see it but because by it I see everything else.”18 f J.D. Walters ‘09 plans to major in religion with a certificate in neuroscience. He is very interested in the dialogue between theology and science, especially with respect to human nature. Chesterton, G.K. Heretics. 9 May 2006. http://www.dur.ac.uk/martin. ward/gkc/books/heretics/ch20.html. 2 Ibid. 3 http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/e/eowilson176377.html (Accessed 9 December, 2006). 4 David L. Haberman and Leslie, Stevenson, Ten Theories of Human Nature (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 4-6. 5 C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001), 24. 6 Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), 200-201. 7 G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1995), 151. 8 Lewis, Mere Christianity, 218-219. 9 David Sloan Wilson, Darwin’s Cathedral: evolution, religion and the nature of society (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), 41 10 Daniel Dennett, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1995), 21. 11 Charles Darwin, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin (London: Collins, 1958) 93. 12 Justin L. Barrett, Why Would Anyone Believe in God? (Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 2004), 19. 13 Rodney Stark, False Conflict, 10 May 2006. http://www.baylor.edu/ content/services/document.php?id=19240. 14 G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 17-18. 15 For an insightful analysis of how Christian theology resonates with our deepest intuitions concerning the creative process, see The Mind of the Maker by Dorothy L. Sayers. 16 See the essay The Weight of Glory by C.S. Lewis. 17 Theodosius Dobzhansky, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,” 11 May 2006. http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml. 18 C.S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001), 140. 1

The Anatomy of Faith Joung Park The rational and volitional nature of faith do not conflict with each other at all; in fact, it is only when you grasp the rational aspect of faith in one hand and its voluntary aspect in the other that you can begin to perceive the true condition of that mystery we call faith.

ell-known atheist Richard Dawkins once wrote, “Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.” While Dawkins’s response might strike a chord with some, I believe that his reply fundamentally misinterprets the nature of faith within the context of Christianity. This is because faith is intimately connected with the rational consideration of evidence. Indeed, I would argue that compelling evidence for the truth of Christianity is a necessary component of every true instance of Christian faith (though not a sufficient one). At the same time, faith in Christianity is also volitional, meaning that one can choose whether or not to believe in the message of the Gospel. Thus, faith within Christianity can be understood to be both a wholly rational, and a wholly volitional, phenomenon. The Rational Aspect of Faith It seems that many non-Christians, as well as quite a few Christians, construe faith as something detached from reason and evidence. Common expressions like, “I don’t just believe that X; I know it to be X,” and, “When faith and reason clash, let reason go to smash,” all help entrench the notion that faith is believing without good evidence, or worse still, believing despite evidence pointing to the contrary. The problem with this popular concept of “irrational faith” is that beliefs, which Locke defines as a “firm assent of the mind,”1 cannot form in the absence of compelling evidence. Of course, someone could form an irrational hunch on the basis of insufficient evidence, but a hunch is not the same thing as a “firm assent of the mind,” which beliefs are defined to be. The observation above shows that evidence is a necessary component of all human beliefs, including our belief in God. Everything we really believe in, from our faith that the sun will rise tomorrow to our conviction that the only certainties in life are death and taxes, is supported by compelling evidence that we collected through our senses and rational deliberations. For example, imagine a scenario in which I offered to give you a million dollars if you believed that Santa Claus existed. You might really want the money, but unless you are still a naïve young child, you would not be able to acquire that belief, try as you might. Though you might tell me that Santa Claus exists, this would not be equivalent to believing in your mind that such a being really existed. And the reason you would not be able to believe in Santa Claus is because there is no good evidence for

his existence. Of course, this is not to say that our beliefs are infallible. There is no absolute guarantee that the sun will rise tomorrow or that God exists. In fact, the vast majority of our beliefs — besides perhaps axiomatic truths in mathematics — could turn out to be false. However, the fact that all beliefs, even religious ones, must be based on evidence shows that Christian faith is essentially a rational enterprise, much like scientific investigation and everyday reasoning. I believe we can safely conclude that true faith without evidence is an utter impossibility. The Bible also supports this view that evidence is necessary for faith. In the Acts of the Apostles, for example, Paul urges the Athenians to believe in Christianity without condemning them for their past disbelief. He explains, “In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30). According to this passage, because the Athenians presumably had no evidence about the truth of Christianity before Paul arrived, it would also have been impossible for them to have believed in Jesus, since evidence is necessary for any belief. Furthermore, I believe we can ascertain from this passage that if God had not provided us with a single shred of evidence for His existence, then we also would not be responsible for our disbelief. As mathematician Blaise Pascal remarks, “It would have been no sin not to have believed in Jesus Christ without miracles.”2� However, the fact that belief is dependent upon evidence no longer provides an excuse for modern skeptics. This is because in today’s pluralistic society, everyone is exposed to an abundance of evidence for the truth of Christianity. Such evidence includes logical arguments, such as the Fine Tuning Argument or the Argument from Morality, as well as personal experiences such as a feeling of conviction when reading the Bible or hearing a testimony from a trusted source. Elaborating on these various evidences supporting Christianity is beyond the scope of this essay; however, I believe that when we objectively examine the evidence supporting the claims of Christianity and compare them with evidence for the converse, we will find that the conjunction of the evidence will still lean heavily towards the Christian’s side. As theologian John Calvin explains, To prevent anyone from taking refuge in the pretense of ignorance, God himself has implanted in all men a certain understanding of his divine majesty … Since, Revisions / Fall 2006

therefore, men one and all perceive that there is a God and that he is their Maker, they are condemned by their own testimony because they have failed to honor him and to consecrate their lives to his will.3 This is not to say that the total evidence precludes the possibility of the non-existence of God, nor to say that there exists some irrefutable proof of the truth of Christianity. For reasons I will discuss in the latter portion of the essay, such a proof cannot exist. What I am claiming here is that for any reasonable person, the total sum of our evidence should at least be compatible with the truth of the claims of Christianity. The Volitional Aspect of Faith While the total evidence leans favorably towards Christianity, a normal, reasonable person can, nevertheless, consider all the facts and still form the belief that Christianity is false. After all, there are many intelligent, well-informed atheists in this world. But if we earlier stated that beliefs can only form in the presence of confirming evidence, then how can it be the case that rational people can believe that Christianity is false despite some good evidence pointing to the contrary? The solution lies, I think, in categorizing every belief into two types: “avoidable” beliefs, and “unavoidable” beliefs. For both avoidable and unavoidable beliefs, evidence is a necessary component; that is, in the absence of strong evidence, the corresponding belief could not form. However, the two categories of beliefs differ in that for unavoidable beliefs, strong evidence is sufficient by itself to form the corresponding beliefs, while for avoidable beliefs, evidence alone is not enough to cause the corresponding belief to form. One requires compelling evidence plus something else to engender “avoidable” beliefs. Most of our perceptual beliefs — such as my belief that I am typing on the computer right now — would be “unavoidable” since the belief automatically follows my reception of evidence. For example, once I experience the sense-perceptions of seeing the computer, hearing the keyboard clicking, and so on, I cannot help but form the belief that I am typing on the computer. The formation of the belief is not affected by whether I want to hold the belief or not, as the earlier example about Santa Claus demonstrated. However, I believe religious beliefs, along with perhaps beliefs about moral and metaphysical issues, do not belong to this “unavoidable” type. Rather, religious beliefs are “avoidable,” meaning that I can have all the evidence I want confirming a particular religious claim, yet still refuse to believe it. Because evidence is necessary but not sufficient for the formation of “avoidable” beliefs such as religious beliefs, this implies that faith requires some other factor in addition to evidence. And this something else, I suggest, is our will to believe. To say that religious beliefs can only form with our willful consent seems like a truly audacious claim. It implies that faith is volitional; that we can choose whether or not to believe in religious claims. However, the idea that we can choose to hold a certain belief is not as strange as it might first seem. In fact, we frequently invoke this principle when we penalize criminals. In his essay Reason and Belief in God, Alvin Plantinga notes that we condemn Hitler, and not the environment in which Hitler grew up in, for forming his belief that Jews should be eliminated.4 Furthermore, Plantinga claims that even if Hitler Revisions / Fall 2006

had not risen to power and acted on his beliefs, we would still be justified in criticizing Hitler. According to Plantinga, this shows that we think Hitler is, to a certain extent, responsible for his own perverted beliefs. We think that Hitler must have perhaps deliberately misinterpreted the evidence, or perhaps omitted a step in his chain of reasoning. But in any case, we conclude that in order for Hitler to have acquired such racist beliefs, he must have had the desire to do so. Similarly, one is also partly responsible for his own religious beliefs, because such beliefs depend both on the available evidence as well as on one’s will. This volitional nature of faith nicely dovetails with Christian theology that links faith with salvation. Christianity holds that—at least in some sense—one’s belief in Jesus determines his salvation or damnation. But if belief in Jesus is some involuntary decision that is made in reaction to available evidence, then it seems the person is not responsible for his faith (or lack thereof), and should not be rewarded or punished for it. However, since faith is an “avoidable” belief, and is thereby volitional, this means that one can be justly rewarded or punished for his or her faith. When I claim that faith is an avoidable belief that is influenced by our will, I am also committed to showing that there exist some fundamental differences between faith and our everyday, unavoidable types of beliefs. After all, the outward contrast between faith and unavoidable beliefs must be caused by certain underlying differences between the two. While these differences are many, I suggest that the three most important ones lie in the evidence considered when forming the belief, the relation between action and belief, and the importance of the belief. Starting with differences in evidence, it seems that the evidence underlying one’s religious beliefs are more susceptible to shifting interpretations than the evidence supporting one’s unavoidable beliefs. To explain, let us first examine the process by which we acquire unavoidable beliefs. Take, for example, our belief that a car is about to hit us. The evidence for this belief is a conjunction of several sense-perceptions: our visual impression of a car heading our way, our ears registering the sound of the car honking, our skin feeling the displacement of air in front of the approaching vehicle, and so on. When we piece these various evidences together, the only possible conclusion we can infer from the evidence is that a car is about to hit us. So we naturally form such a belief. However, religious beliefs, as well as other avoidable types of beliefs, are not as directly correlated with evidence as unavoidable beliefs. This is because evidence concerning religious issues is more open to subjective interpretation. When answering the question of whether or not God exists, we rely less on such clear evidence as comes from our sense-perceptions (since God is presumably immaterial in nature), and more on evidence we acquire through personal experience and metaphysical arguments — evidence that does not necessitate a single conclusion, but is rather open to the possibility of many different interpretations. Consequently, the evidence grounding our faith does not bind us to the truth of Christianity, since an unbeliever can always interpret the evidence to make it no longer support the claims of Christianity. Faith and unavoidable beliefs also differ in the degree by which they can be influenced by our actions. For most of our

unavoidable beliefs, there is nothing we can do to avoid acquiring them. The evidence that arrives through our senses so forcefully entails particular beliefs that we cannot help but acquire such beliefs. However, with faith and other “avoidable” beliefs, this does not seem to be the case. Our actions do influence such beliefs. I am not claiming here that our religious beliefs are completely at the whim of our actions. For example, I cannot acquire Christian beliefs just by attending a church service. However, I believe that over time, the minute and indirect pressure that our actions exert on our religious beliefs can accrue to a significant sum. Someone who chooses to only read works by Bertrand Russell, Hume, Dawkins, and other such pillars of atheism, will likely acquire the belief that God does not exist. Conversely, someone who reads works by Pascal, Plantinga, and also regularly attends Bible studies, would be more likely acquire faith in God. And insofar as our actions arise from our willful choice, and our actions in turn help shape our “avoidable” beliefs, it seems that our will does indirectly control our faith. The final difference between avoidable and unavoidable types of beliefs is the relative importance of the two. In general, avoidable beliefs, which include religious, moral, and metaphysical beliefs, are of greater personal importance than our everyday, unavoidable beliefs. Nations have gone to war on the basis of their moral belief that slavery is wrong. People have been jailed and beaten for their belief in the metaphysical notion of justice. Still others have been martyred for their religious faith. In contrast, the implications of most of our unavoidable beliefs are not earth-shattering, to say the least. One’s belief that there is a tree ahead of him, or that a car is approaching, is unlikely to transform every facet of his life in the way that his faith in God could. But if our avoidable beliefs such as faith are so important to us, this means that we have a vested interest in what kinds of avoidable beliefs we will acquire. As philosopher William James notes, “If your heart does not want a world of moral reality, your head will assuredly never make you believe in one.”5 We will do all we can to mold our avoidable beliefs, such as faith, into what we want them to be. And the method that we can use to will ourselves to either faith or atheism is by interpreting the evidence and choosing our actions in such a manner that will eventually lead us to hold the desired belief. Faith, then, is not only a rational enterprise; it is also a voluntary endeavor. Now that I have demonstrated how faith is both rational and volitional, I can imagine two different objections that might be raised against my claim. First, one might wonder why faith must be an “avoidable” type of belief rather than the “unavoidable” type. One might wonder why God, if He indeed exists, chose not to write in big, bold font “God exists,” so that every person who looked up would automatically acquire faith in Him. My response would be that Christian faith is not an unavoidable belief because God desires to grant freedom to His creatures. For some reason or another, God preferred to give us the freedom to believe in Him or not, rather than simply cow us into submission. While I cannot claim to know exactly why God chose to grant us a choice about our faith, I suspect that this decision may be tied to His love for us. God wants to enter a lov-

ing relationship with every person, but love cannot exist without freedom. A love that is forced is no longer love at all. By making faith an avoidable type of belief, God may have accepted the risk that certain people will choose not to believe in God, in order to gain the possibility of partaking in genuine, voluntary relationships with human beings.6 Whereas the previous objection questioned the volitional nature of faith, a second objection might cast the rationality of faith into doubt. The objection would begin by observing that since faith is volitional, this means two reasonable people could access identical sets of evidence concerning the truth of Christianity, yet one person choose to believe in God and the other choose to believe that God does not exist. The objection would then conclude that since the same evidence could lead to different beliefs, this means that faith does not rely exclusively on evidence, and thus cannot be completely rational. When reduced to its logical components, the objection is just claiming that from the premise that evidence is insufficient for faith, it follows that faith cannot be completely rational. The premise fits everything I wrote in my essay, since I repeatedly emphasized that evidence is necessary but not sufficient for Christian faith (as well as for any “avoidable” beliefs). However, one cannot validly conclude from this premise that faith is somehow irrational, since X can be an essential characteristic of Y even if X is not sufficient for Y. Take, for example, a Red Delicious apple. It is red in color; in fact, redness is an essential feature of all Red Delicious apples. However, possessing redness is not sufficient to guarantee something as being a Red Delicious apple. Redness must be combined with other features such as a crispy texture, sweet tangy taste, and so on, in order to form a sufficient condition for Red Delicious apples. However, the fact that redness is insufficient to describe Red Delicious apples does not mean that these apples are not completely red. Similarly, just because faith might require other factors besides evidence and reason does not deny the fact that it still is a completely rational enterprise. The rational and volitional nature of faith do not conflict with each other at all; in fact, it is only when you grasp the rational aspect of faith in one hand and its voluntary aspect in the other that you can begin to perceive the true condition of that mystery we call faith. f Joung Park ‘08 is a philosophy major from Dallas, TX. John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, IV, 17, 24. Blaise Pascal, Pensées (London: Penguin Books Ltd., 1966), 85. 3 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), Book I, Chapter 3, 43-44. 4 Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolterstorff, Faith and Rationality (University of Notre Dame Press, 1983), 34-5. 5 William James, The Will to Believe (New York: Dover Publications, 1956), 23. 6 In my last article for Revisions (Summer 2006 issue) I elaborated in greater detail about how God’s decision to give humans the choice to believe, as well as His decision to govern the universe through rigid physical laws such as evolution, might in fact reveal God’s love for His creatures. The article is accessible at <http://www.revisionsjournal. com> 1 2

Revisions / Fall 2006

Evangelicals and Their Enemies Gregory Lee Evangelicals would do themselves a service by admitting that they do not have a monopoly on truth, by listening to those outside their circles, and by refraining from retaliation and caricature toward those who attack them.

he details may vary, but the general dynamic is common enough: evangelicals and religion departments make for uneasy bedfellows. Evangelical students at elite undergraduate institutions often experience disorientation when, in the midst of an exciting and formative period of intellectual growth, they are taught not to trust professors who question evangelical lines of thought. I have experienced this dynamic from both sides. The student above is, of course, me. As an undergraduate at Princeton, I eschewed the religion department and interacted with its faculty only with extreme care. Now, as a graduate student in religion at Duke – and still an evangelical – I often find myself siding more with the faculty. Twenty minutes down the road from Duke is its archrival, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. UNC has an excellent religion department, and graduate students from Duke often commute there for classes. The department boasts one of

today’s leading “faith busters”: Bart Ehrman, James A. Gray Professor of New Testament and department chair. Ehrman is a distinguished scholar who began his career primarily in textual criticism, the study of the manuscripts on which modern translations of the Bible are based. In recent years, Ehrman has turned his attention to writing popular-level books that raise troubling questions about the origins of “Orthodox Christianity.” His recent Misquoting Jesus was a New York Times Bestseller and was featured on National Public Radio. Christianity, Ehrman says, was never an uncontested tradition; there were all sorts of rival versions competing for general acceptance. Moreover, the manuscripts we have of the Bible are not trustworthy. We do not even have the original manuscripts, and the ones we have contradict each other at a number of points. Some of these differences, Ehrman claims, are not only significant but also theologically and politically motivated. How, then, can we really know what Jesus said? Revisions / Fall 2006

I will not deal with the particulars here, but I note that much of the material Ehrman so provocatively spins is basic and unthreatening material in master’s-level New Testament courses. When pushed, Ehrman reveals much more measured historical judgments than one might expect. For instance, despite his interest in extra-canonical texts, Ehrman admits that the synoptic gospels provide the most reliable historical information on Jesus we have. Nobody will question Ehrman’s expertise in textual criticism, but perhaps his most striking gift is the ability to popularize an otherwise arid academic discipline onto the Jon Stewart Show and the Colbert Report. (In the latter, when Ehrman described himself as an agnostic, Colbert responded, “Isn’t that just an atheist without balls?” As of submission of this article, the clip can still be found online.) Evangelicals have not been amused, and learned responses to the book are increasingly being published. But what they often miss –- and certainly not because Ehrman tries to hide it –- is the extent to which Ehrman is a product of their own culture. In Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman shares about being “born again” when he was 15, and happily trumpets the fact that he attended “Moody Bible Institute, where Bible is our middle name.” (Ehrman spent three years at Moody but received his bachelor’s degree at Wheaton.) Various experiences during graduate study at Princeton Theological Seminary made him question evangelical understandings of Scripture, and he eventually left the faith entirely. Ehrman’s attacks against evangelicals hit home because, as a former insider, he knows precisely what buttons to push. For instance, Ehrman marvels at the preposterous lengths fundamentalists would go to harmonize the gospels. In Mark, Jesus says Peter would deny him three times “before the cock crows twice,” but in Matthew, Jesus says Peter would deny him three times “before the cock crows.” Which one is it, “before the cock crows” or “before the cock crows twice”? At Moody, Ehrman came across a book with a very simple solution: Peter denied Jesus six times, three times “before the cock crows” and three times “before the cock crows twice.” The lack of nuance is obvious. Schizophrenically straddling the worlds of popular evangelicalism and academic religion, I find the whole battle rather ironic. Anecdotally at least, I often find that the students and faculty who have the most edge against Christianity are former conservative Christians. They were the smart kids who bought into the system for a while, but soon found that certain questions were not tolerated. Eventually, they became frustrated with this perceived narrowness and rigidity, and they turned their interests from John or Augustine to the Gnostics and Manicheans. During this process, the old system of thought became an object of mockery. Along those lines, Ehrman’s target is not a general Christian audience but evangelicals. Mainline Protestants, for instance, are not really part of the conversation. They are not interested in defending inerrancy and have other ways of understanding the Bible. But for at least certain strands of evangelicalism, Ehrman’s arguments are a direct attack: if the manuscripts behind the Bible betray contradictions, the Bible is not inerrant; and if the Bible is not inerrant, the foundation of Christianity falls apart. Indeed, were this view of Scripture not so prevalent, Revisions / Fall 2006

Ehrman’s books would not sell so widely. When evangelicals respond by vilifying Ehrman as a false teacher, they reinforce stereotypes of the defensive, reactionary thought that helps produce ex-evangelicals in the first place. It is a sad cycle, and one that takes years to complete. All of this leaves us with a practical problem: what to do with the good-hearted, intellectually curious but impressionable self-identifying evangelical college student. Isn’t there a place for defending the flock? Are Christians simply to sit back and let attacks against Holy Scripture go unchecked? A key complicating issue is evangelicalism’s populism. On this view, Christianity is for the everyman: the disciples were uneducated fishermen who changed the world through their simple faith. Just as Peter and John boldly proclaimed the gospel before the chief priests and Sanhedrin, so also the Christian college student need not fear before his professors. With a glut of popular-level apologetics books on the market, the evangelical student can learn just enough to feel ready for battle. If the professor does not take the student seriously or gives him a lower grade, the easiest and most simplistic response is self-defense: Christians will be called fools if they stand up for the truth; the academy makes people proud, and the proud resist submission to the gospel. Only the rare evangelical community will suggest other possibilities: that the student’s paper did not actually deserve an “A,” and that a popular-level apologetics book is not academically credible, best intentions notwithstanding. Yes, a faithful Christian can expect persecution, but this is not warrant for disregarding self-criticism. Nevertheless, the issue is not one-sided. Professors have their own sets of biases, and learning does not guarantee objectivity. Clearly, there are also issues of power at stake. It is irresponsible for academics with specialized knowledge to use it to confuse and disturb those who lack the professional training to respond critically – especially when these authors are making a profit. Moreover, this issue is symptomatic of a larger problem, that of the highly fractured nature of religious studies and theological education. Though evangelicals have made a mark in certain scholarly fields, there are still significant divisions between evangelicals and the rest of the academy in areas like Biblical studies. Since evangelical scholarship lacks credibility in larger academic circles, it is difficult for evangelical students at elite institutions to engage their professors in these disciplines. The first order of business in larger scale change is – to put it in rather evangelical terms – a shift of attitude, of heart. Evangelicals would do themselves a service by admitting that they do not have a monopoly on truth, by listening to those outside their circles, and by refraining from retaliation and caricature toward those who attack them. Humility, patience, and forbearance: with these virtues, evangelicals will be less prone to produce their own enemies, and further along the path of truly Christian scholarship. f Gregory Lee ‘00 is currently a doctoral student in the Graduate School of Religion at Duke University, Program of Christian Theology and Ethics. He received his M.Div. from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

The Quiet Death Li Deng What do we tell the people we love who are dead in their separation from God, the Father who created and loved them more than we ever could?

n places where there is suffering from the atrocities of war, the injustices of corruption, or the devastation of neglect, it is natural for people to wonder about underlying realities. In neighborhoods and nations where visible poverty permeates every street corner, spiritual poverty becomes apparent as well to those who witness the tragedies and recognize that something is terribly wrong. But in places of affluence and material comfort, reminders of the existence of evil and suffering do not come so frequently nor so forcefully. Here in Princeton, there is no hunger and no thirst, no killing and no dying, as far as most eyes can see. In the midst of this plenty, Christians also become accustomed to viewing the world and the people around us according to appearances and facades, forgetting that there is the same underlying reality everywhere, at once quiet and catastrophic. In his letter to the Ephesian church, the apostle Paul reminded the early Christians that they had once been dead. The English word “dead” has lost some of its gravity with frequent usage, but Paul uses the Greek word nekros, which calls to mind the condition of a corpse. Why does Paul speak in such stark terms? Obviously the early Christians had not been physically dead. But they had been spiritually dead, in trespasses and sins. Paul uses the same word for spiritual death as for physical destruction to force upon us the severity of the sinner’s plight. To the Ephesians, Paul’s letter was a reminder that they had once been as good as walking corpses. But what is spiritual death? When God told Adam that he would surely die on the day he ate from the forbidden tree, God did not mean physical death alone, for Adam and Eve did not cease to breathe after their disobedience. Rather, a tragedy more insidious took place. When Adam and Eve covered themselves with fig leaves, it was to hide from each other out of shame and alienation. And when they heard God approaching in the garden and hid from God as well, the meaning of spiritual death becomes clear. Because of sin, people suffer the spiritual death of separation from God, for we have been cut off from the very source of life. The reverberations of our separation penetrate into every part of human existence. Not only is there animosity toward God, but also betrayal in the marriage chamber, jealousy among brothers, and hatred between peoples. The sin that tore asunder our peace with God and our peace with each other manifests itself all too painfully in the calamities that fill our history books, our daily headlines, and even our own lives. But how is any of this relevant at Princeton? There is no

famine here, no ghastly genocide, no rotting bodies lining the streets. Statements concerning evil, suffering, and death do not seem to apply. Our friends are intelligent, capable, and successful people. They are not people for whom we would grieve or have compassion. They are people we would respect and perhaps even secretly envy. And yet the truth is that they suffer, like we once did, from the catastrophic separation. They are, like we once were, walking corpses. The reality is not really so unapparent. Semblances of safety and well-being do unravel ever so quickly if we are careful to notice what is happening in the lives of those around us. Every day, there are people driven to desperation by the possibility that they are not good enough. Every day there are people broken by the realization that they are not loved in the way they had hoped. Every day there are people tormented by anger, hatred, and confusion at things they have suffered or things they have done. More wretchedness and darkness reside here than the old stones and beautiful trees would ever betray. Yet not many would recognize that those who walk so confidently all around are blundering blindly, as sick as the lepers outside ancient Jerusalem. And what are we to do about the sobering realities besides wring our hands when no one is looking? What do we tell the people we love who are dead in their separation from God, the Father who created and loved them more than we ever could? What did anyone ever tell us? We could start with a story. In a dream, the patriarch Jacob saw a ladder. This ladder bridged the distance between earth and heaven and on it the angels of heaven ascended and descended. From the ladder’s top, God reached down to mankind at the ladder’s bottom in a promise of inheritance and blessing, a covenant of reconciliation. This ladder was Christ, the Son of God who was crucified for the sins of the world, resurrected in new life, and exalted in glory. For God the Father, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (Ephesians 2:4-5).When we were once hopeless in our separation, God sent the good news to us. And now it is our turn to love as we have been loved, to send the good news out to those who are in need. For it is the Father’s desire to raise the dead to life, to bring back the lost and prodigal children. f Li Deng‘10 is from Los Angeles, CA. She has not chosen a major. Revisions / Fall 2006

Towards a Christian Epistemology Richard Lopez The most unsettling consequence of our impaired cognitive faculties is that we cannot form an epistemology on our own.

ow do we know that we know what we know? Scientists, philosophers, and theologians have posed this question for millennia, many times to no avail and with no definitive resolution. Why is this the case? Why is it so difficult for us humans to trust our proper knowledge and let our doubts just fall by the wayside? The answer to these questions cannot lie in ourselves, because with honest introspection we will find our thoughts, desires, goals, and motivations to be at best utterly capricious and at worst severely flawed. Now if this is true, we should terminate our efforts and forget about ever developing a sound theory of knowledge. But through the lens of the Christian gospel, the story does not end at this bleak juncture. The implications of a Christian epistemology are not only intellectually curious and significant, but also profoundly provocative for one’s identity and worldview. First, if we assume that the Bible is really the word of God, we must deem it the primary source of a Christian epistemology. Let’s start at the beginning, the first verse of the book of Genesis: “In the beginning, God.” Stop right there. From those four words we can make a startling but crucial supposition: everything starts with God—not us. We were not the first to exist. God existed eons before we ever breathed or walked. Therefore, if an epistemology exists at all it does not originate and develop in people but rather in God Himself. Great, you might say, but the world seems too chaotic and meaningless to truly reflect any divine realities, let alone an ideal epistemology. In asserting this, you would be partly correct. While the world as we know it does not seem to exude the character of God, Scripture suggests otherwise: “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made” (Romans 1:19-20). Even with this said, something does not seem right. If God’s attributes are perceived in the created realm, why is it so difficult for humans to detect them? To answer this question we must consider an interesting topic in theology termed the noetic effects of sin. The word noetic comes from the word nous in Greek (“mind”), which describes anything related to cognition and perception. Specifically, the noetic effects of sin are the ways in which sin has affected our ability to think and perceive. In a post-Fall world we must concede that sin has affected all levels of reality, including the biological realm that naturally consists of our brains and how they function. Psychological research demonstrates that while our brains are immensely complex and have tremendous computational Revisions / Fall 2006

power, they suffer from many surprising defects. For example, psychologist Daniel Schacter recounts in his book The Seven Sins of Memory the numerous ways in which the human memory system is faulty and unreliable. Consider this: many times when we think about the past we tend to fabricate missing information, in turn leading to completely false memories of events that never occurred. This is a prime exemplar of a noetic effect of sin. Yet, the most unsettling consequence of our impaired cognitive faculties is that we cannot form an epistemology on our own, or even have access to God—the source of epistemology. Theologian and philosopher Paul Helm notes that “knowledge or true understanding of the facts is thus a function not only of what the facts are, but also of the nature of those who are apprehenders…of the facts.”1 We must humble ourselves before God, recognizing that we know far less than what we claim to know. We are fallen, deficient beings who never arrive at complete assurance of anything on our own. Despite the gift of great brainpower that God has given us, we must recognize that we are incapable of coming to know God without His help and without our sincere efforts to know Him better. Again, we seem to have arrived at a hopeless juncture. But this is not so, because God has revealed Himself throughout human history in such significant ways that all people have an unparalleled “remedy” for all the detrimental effects of sin; they now have access to “knowledge of God the Redeemer”2 in the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus revealed God’s epistemology because in fact He is epistemology: “I am the way, the truth, the life…” (John 14:6). As soon as people realize deep in themselves that they are able to know anything at all because of God’s grace, they will earnestly want to praise Him and cultivate a relationship with Him. This is true Christian epistemology, and I think philosopher Emmanuel Levinas states it best: “Human truth…consists in risking one’s life by living it in reply to… Revelation—that is to say, in reply to the Love of God.”3 f Richard Lopez ‘09 is majoring in psychology with a certificate in neuroscience. He is from Rockaway, NJ. Paul Helm, “John Calvin, the Sensus Divinitatis, and the noetic effects of sin.” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 43 (1998), 101. 2 Ibid., 102. 3 Emmanuel Levinas, Difficult Freedom - Essays on Judaism. (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990), 195. 1

Why Christians Should Engage the World The Rev. David H. Kim The confidence we have to work in common with the world for God’s glory and for humanity’s good lies not in any inherently unfallen aspect of the world or people, but rather in the ongoing, unified, cosmic work of the Holy Spirit.

here is no question that religion has be- he distributes to whomever he wills for the common good of come a defining part of contemporary American political mankind… he fills, moves, and quickens all things by the power and civic life. The public square has become fully clothed of the same Spirit, and does so according to the character that he with tattered religious rhetoric that elicits fear, frustration, joy bestowed upon each kind by the law of creation.1 Calvin underand delight amidst our pluralistic democracy. From the office stands that the work and influence of the Holy Spirit extend outof the president and the neo-conservatives to the religious right side of the church to all people and creation.2 Following Calvin, and the religious left, religion, and in particular Christianity, is Abraham Kuyper also states, “The work of the Holy Spirit is not a de facto part of civil society in America. The Protestant tradi- confined to the elect, and does not begin with their regeneration, tions have been divided over the issue of engaging the secular. but it touches every creature, animate and inanimate, and begins Followers of Hauerwas and other Anabaptist traditions call for a its operations in the elect at the very moment of their origin.”3 divide between the church and the state, while those descendents He continues by distinguishing the Spirit’s role in creation as of the magisterial reformation have countered this isolationist the perfector4 and assigns to the Holy Spirit the task of leading attitude with a public theology of engagement and co-belliger- all creation to its final destiny and purpose, which is the glory ence. of God. This glory is manifested in various In this day, when Jerusalem and Athens ways: “An insect and a star, the mildew on seem to have collided in evangelical Amerithe wall and the cedar of Lebanon, a comca, the church is in need of a public theology, mon laborer and a man like Augustine, are all deeply grounded in Scripture, that provides the creatures of God; yet how dissimilar they the theological resources and rationale to are, and how various their ways and degrees thoughtfully engage the public realm. Howof glorifying God.”5 Before and after the ever, many Christians have questioned the Fall, the manifold glory of God is manifest rationale of engaging the world around us. throughout all of creation and the task of the The Roman Catholic response to this doubt Holy Spirit is to complete the end of God’s has been their appeal to lex naturalis, or glory throughout His creation. The same natural law, to find common ground within Spirit that indwells the hearts of Christians all people. Yet, for many Protestants who also works, in Christian and non-Christian uphold the doctrine of total depravity, and in alike, to bring this world in its entirety to its particular the noetic effects of the Fall, natuGod-glorifying ends. ral law does not furnish an adequate or suffiImplications of Common Grace cient theological foundation to build a public The work of the Holy Spirit provides a theology. Reformed theologians fall into this theological foundation to build our underlatter category, and many appeal to the notion standing of common grace—one that is anAbraham Kuyper of common grace. I want to argue, building chored in the ontological Holy Trinity. He on the works of Swiss Reformer John Calvin and Dutch Prime is the Eternal Spirit who, from the very beginning of creation, Minister Abraham Kuyper, that common grace grounded in the brought order and life into the midst of creation’s chaos and work of the Holy Spirit provides the theological rationale for death. When we consider His cosmic work, we have a rationale Christians to work side by side with those outside the church to why Christians ought to engage every facet of the world in which meaningfully engage every sector of life and society. we live. The Holy Spirit is at work in all of creation and society, The Holy Spirit working to apply His redemptive and perfective purpose. Often when Christians think of the work of the Holy Spirit, Common grace has often been understood as being primarthey limit His activity to Christians. They don’t consider how ily negative—restraining the power of sin in the world. Howthe Spirit works His perfective purposes in all of creation, in all ever, given the telos of the Spirit’s work, common grace ought the cosmos. John Calvin in his Institutes writes, “We ought not to be seen as a positive, progressing, constructive power in the to forget those most excellent benefits of the divine Spirit, which world. To understand common grace as the restraint of sin is

Revisions / Fall 2006

to insufficiently recognize the cosmic purpose of God’s Spirit in the world. This active, positive work is done on the Christian and non-Christian alike. They both are able to share in the restorative experience of the Holy Spirit (cf. Hebrews 6:4-6). The Holy Spirit is able to work in and through the Christian and non-Christian to bring about his good purposes. This principle does not violate the doctrine of total depravity as the good works are the result of the Spirit’s operating in the Christian and non-Christian. This should not lead to a romantic idealism of the future; that type of positivism does not take seriously the nature and impact of sin. The Calvinistic notion of total depravity must balance and ward off any sense of Christian perfectionism or an idealized progress of humanity. As history continues by the mercy of God, both sinful flesh and the Spirit are at work and at war with one another. As Romans 8 reveals, the Spirit will prevail, yet until that final day, evil will continue to persist in all its multi-formity. Yet, the fact that the Spirit continues to be at work gives us the opportunity and rationale to work with others in and outside the church to advance God’s Kingdom in the world. This is indeed common grace. There remains a clear antithesis between Christian and nonChristian; however, this antithesis lies in the permanence of the Spirit’s actions. In the case of the elect, His eternal presence will eradicate sin in the individual, whereas, those who are not permanently indwelled by the Spirit will have to face judgment on the basis of their own merit. When the Spirit indwells a person, that believer is a new creation, yet that new creation de facto bears much similarity to the old. Christians can do evil acts in the flesh and non-Christians can do good works through the influence of the Spirit, but the important distinction between the two is that through faith in Christ, the Christian has received the special grace of the Spirit’s eternal indwelling.6 In conclusion, the notion of common grace grounded in the work of the Holy Spirit provides a theological rationale to engage co-belligerently with every sector of the world around us.

Theologian Vincent Bacote writes, “This work of the Spirit is a providential, preserving, indwelling, and life-giving interaction with the created order. It extends back to the beginning of creation but continues into the present and invites us to shape the world toward the future.”7 The confidence we have to work in common with the world for God’s glory and for humanity’s good lies not in any inherently unfallen aspect of the world or people, but rather in the ongoing, unified, cosmic work of the Holy Spirit. It is the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit which guards Christians from creating an artificial divide between the sacred and the secular, and for this reason we can boldly assert with Kuyper, “There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: ‘Mine!’” f The Rev. David H. Kim is the director of Manna Christian Fellowship. He received his M.Div. from Westminster Theological Seminary and is currently pursuing his Th.M. in Christian Ethics at Princeton Theological Seminary. Calvin, 275. Institutes Book II, ii, 16. Vincent E. Bacote, The Spirit in Public Theology (Michigan: Baker Academic, 2005). Refer to 92-96 for a brief overview of common grace in Calvin. 3 Abraham Kuyper, The Work of the Holy Spirit (Tennessee: AMG Publishers, 2001), 48. 4 “That in every work effected by the Father, Son and holy Ghost in common, the power to bring forth proceeds from the Father; the power to arrange from the Son; the power to perfect from the Holy Spirit… the great teachers of the Church, after the fifth century, used to distinguish the operations of the Persons of the Trinity by saying that the operation whereby all things originated proceeds from the Father; that whereby they received consistency from the Son; and that whereby they were led to their destiny from the Holy Spirit.” Kuyper, Holy Spirit, 20. 5 Kuyper, Holy Spirit, 23. 6 Cf. Romans 7:25-8:30. 7 Bacote, 21. 1 2

Like what you see here? Disagree with an article?

Tell us what you think! We welcome your opinions. please comment on articles at www.revisionsonline.com, or direct your letters to revisionsonline@gmail.com Revisions / Fall 2006

â&#x20AC;&#x153;I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.â&#x20AC;? -C.S. Lewis

WRITE. To get involved with Revisions , or to find out more about it, email us at revisionsonline@gmail.com or visit our website at www.revisionsonline.com.