Volume 6, Issue 2 | Spring 2018
Peripateo
the Swarthmore College Journal of Christian Discourse
Understanding Homosexuality in Biblical and Contemporary Times by James Sutton
Also in this issue: Building God's Beautifully Diverse Kingdom by Michael Broughton
Doctrine of Development and the Development of Doctrine by Tobias Philip
A Letter from the Editor Dear Reader, Each semester brings its own set of challenge, some old and some new, to Christians and non-Christians alike at Swarthmore. Our school’s proud tradition of activism persists with unwearied stamina in the pursuit of social justice in its many forms, and from the Sunrise Movement’s unstaggering endeavors of environmental stewardship to O4S’s compassionate concern for victims of sexual harassment and violence, this last semester proves no exception thereto.Views across campus for each of these movements’ pursued means and ends may well be divided, but, as Christians, the Peripateo staff recognizes the sense of love and support for those in need that motivates them. Seeking to address some of these same concerns ourselves, however feeble and inadequate our attempts may be, we have published this issue largely on the theme of love and sexuality. We recognize that the even the most essential Christian orthodoxy can be reasonably conflicted on such matters, so we hoped to present multiple perspectives. Adam Schauer’s piece endeavors to find a Christian correction to the harmful phenomenon of ‘mansplaining.’ James Sutton’s piece considers the changed historical understanding of homosexuality in Biblical and contemporary times and how that warrants a modification of Christian teaching. My own piece considers how the nature of doctrinal development itself may not allow for any abrogation in essential sexual ethics. Finally, Sawyer Lake’s poem offers a reflection on human love and divine grace. Not one of these pieces stands for the opinion of the Peripateo journal; they simply represent individual attempts to reconcile varying human expressions of love in the timeless principle of the Incarnation. We are also grateful to present in this volume the considerations of Michael Broughton, whose trip through Jackson, Mississippi provoked the following meditations on race and reconciliation. Adam Schauer has also offered his own timely eulogizings upon the death of Billy Graham, whose work included racial activism. We hope these pieces can also contribute valuable perspectives within the still vitally proceeding discussion of race. However politicized and fraught the discussions of race and sexuality have become, the Christian perspective proposes yet another path. Indeed, within the chaotically contingent arguments for what is just in a particular circumstance, the essential consideration for the Christian is clear - that every individual difference is harmonized in Christ, since in him “there is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians, 3:28). Tobias Philip Editor-in-Chief
i | Letter from the Editor
IN THIS ISSUE A Biblical Criticism of Mansplaining by Adam Schauer
2
Doctrine of Development and the Development of Doctrine by Tobias Philip
6
Understanding Homosexuality in Biblical and Contemporary Times by James Sutton
16
Building God's Beautifully Diverse Kingdom by Michael Broughton
12
In Memoriam: Billy Graham by Adam Schauer
22
Yet Grace Would Set Me Free 23 by Sawyer Lake
Essays & Ar ticles
Peripateo
the Swarthmore College Journal of Christian Discourse
Editorial Staff
Tobias Philip '20 Michael Broughton '19
Irene Tang '19 Juhyae Kim '19 Jasmine Betancourt '20 Sawyer Lake '20 Adam Schauer '20 Daniel Swanson '21 Rebecca Sanders '21
Reflections
Editor-in-Chief Executive Editor Business Manager Design Manager Editor, Design Editor Editor Editor Editor, Design Editor
Article Contributors Michael Broughton '19 Sawyer Lake '20 Tobias Philip '20 Adam Schauer '20 James Sutton '20
Ar t and Poetry
Photo Contributors Emily Audet '18 Timothy Greco '19 Juhyae Kim '19 Irene Tang '19 Ju Hyung Kim
Who We Are
Peripateo seeks to reconcile faith and academia by engaging religious issues through an intellectual
lens. Coming from a variety of Christian traditions, we seek to represent a diversity of perspectives. We
believe that the message of Jesus Christ has power-
ful implications for our daily lives and the world at large. Our goal is to fuse creativity and intellectualism in this journal to invite readers into a thought-
ful discourse: what role does God play in our lives? What are the ways that a Christian perspective both
complements and complicates an academic one?
Read our previous issues at https://issuu.com/swarthmoreperipateo
Swarthmore Peripateo | 1
A contemporary, startling
trend in intergender interactions, called “mansplaining”, remains one of the most pervasive and relevant topics of contention on campus and in the modern world. Essentially, male-identifying individuals tend to overly assert themselves in conversation, interrupting marginalized individuals, discrediting their valuable Essentially, male-identifying thoughts and opinions, individuals tend to overly assert and making them feel heard. This comthemselves in conversation, less plaint resounds through interrupting marginalized our community at individuals, discrediting their Swarthmore, particularly in the classroom, valuable thoughts and opinions, where marginalized and making them feel less heard. groups feel disrespected especially by male professors. Regarding this issue, I hope to provide insight into the relevance of this topic on religion and the potential solutions from a Christian perspective. In a religious setting, the broader dia-
2 | A Biblical Criticism of Mansplaining
logue about this phenomenon of gender hierarchy has immense implications from the lack of female leaders in the Catholic church to the rhetoric of evangelists to the doctrine of intergender interactions. Given the emotional and lasting response to the question, it is worth considering how to marry the two in such a way that the Christian faith remains an accepting and truly personal religion. This article will address this dichotomy, starting with one of the most vulnerable practices for mansplaining in Christianity: evangelism. I should first mention that I do, in fact, identify as male, and hope myself to avoid “mansplaining” and other pitfalls in this article. Although I will be speaking about this topic from my own perspective and experience as a male, others may have different but equally valuable thoughts on the matter as well. Masculinity also means and manifests itself in different ways for different people, and it would be far too constricting to call the male identity a monolith. Masculinity has no one definition or manifestation and, in speaking about a topic as
A Biblical Criticism of Mansplaining by Adam Schauer
contentious as this one, this “masculinity” I am discussing has archaic roots in alternatively informed times. I also strongly do not personally believe in active evangelism, the conscious pursuit of conversion for others, making this article particularly relevant for my own life. These contradictions actually benefit us by adding more to the dialogue surrounding this contentious topic, and so I offer this opinion simply as another contribution to that end. Whatever you identify as, you can no doubt glean something of value surrounding your own approach to religious conversations and the public practice of religion in your own life. The intertwinement between Christianity and masculinity has deep roots from the earliest church leadership to even modern day theological thought. Lately though, there has been a startling revival of an archaic 19th century English movement, known as “muscular Christianity,” that attempts to reorient the focus and leadership of the church back to men exclusively. While this movement does enfranchise many men as both evangelists and active
participants in familial and church life, it simultaneously creates conflict and disrespect for women, potentially turning them away from Christianity. The issue of mansplaining specifically pertains to academic and social, not just religious, applications as well. In order to prevent the further perpetuation of mansplaining and disrespectful male evangelists, the new wave of evangelists must take certain precautions in their methods to maximize effectiveness and respect. Particularly at a progressive and highly intellectual institution like Swarthmore, it is imperative to engage in debate with tactful rhetoric and diction for the edification of the overall community and refinement of ideas. Such an educated and passionate community is apt to expose singular missteps or flaws in logic and prudently critique particularly contentious dialogues. Thus, any attempts at evangelism, a topic rife with contention and emotion already, ought to employ this same tact and wariness. Evangelical theorists commonly cite St. Francis of Assisi’s famous quotation “Preach
Swarthmore Peripateo | 3
the Gospel, and if necessary, use words.” The sentiment backing this cliched quotation basically claims that “actions speak louder than words”. It actually employs common marketing practice in human psychology that humans are more receptive to influences other than direct conversation; no one wants to be told what to do and how to feel. However, this practice applies directly to the current contradiction between masculinity and evangelism in the form of mansplaining. Since the largest issue with mansplaining By shutting off the recipient, includes interruption and prevention one actually does a lot worse from feeling heard, for one’s own convictions many male-idenindividuals about one’s argument and tifying need to remember religious beliefs. that there are other, often better ways to convey the same message. By shutting off the recipient, one actually does a lot worse for one’s own convictions about one’s argument and religious beliefs. In a concerted effort to allow for open dialogue and truly showing care for the other person, however, one actually does far more for one’s own credibility, especially as an evangelist. These tangible changes apply to any male-identifying individual and can radically change his personal practice of religion. As for myself, I have admittedly erred in mansplaining before, particularly in previous romantic relationships. The issues that arose did not pertain to evangelical or even religious pursuits, but instead more secular social interaction. While I would not have identified it as mansplaining at the time or intended to condescend in any way, my desire to help impeded on my ability to listen and empathize. Although this complaint
4 | A Biblical Criticism of Mansplaining
seems far too common in relationships, in many cases it actually represents a form of mansplaining and fails to resolve the situation any further. In those cases, my actions fell short of God’s will and I earnestly apologize, seeking to be more conscious of the perception and intent of my words. There is biblical precedent for the more aware approach as well, especially through Jesus’ first convocation of the first 72 evangelists, including some of his disciples. Luke 10:3 says “Go! I am sending you out like lambs among wolves” as this call predicts this need for a tactful approach to evangelism, invoking the imagery of his disciples as lambs led to slaughter. One of the greatest evangelists of all time, Paul, also reiterates this approach in the Fruits of the Spirit, namely gentleness, from his letter to the Galatians. Finally, the bible verse I try to live my life by, 2 Corinthians 12:9-10, also claims “Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. For when I am weak, then I will be made strong.” All too commonly, men attempt to hide their own vulnerability and humanity to fit archaic societal stereotypes about strength and their masculinity. Allowing this weakness to shine through not only makes you more approachable, accessible, and human as an evangelist, but also has more selfish residual effects, bolstering your own self-awareness and relationship with God. However, apart from the biblical and philosophical call for tactful evangelical methods, the Bible also speaks on the broader topic of intergender relations in religion as well, clearly laying out a need for mutual respect. This topic has just as much debate and contradiction even in the Bible itself as some say women should keep silent in Christian and earlier Jewish communities, while others strongly desire the
opinion and unique perspective of women. For many, the Bible falls short on issues surrounding gender relations and equality in this way, particularly citing more archaic laws of the Old Testament. To address this dichotomy, the best way to observe God’s true opinion on the matter is to look at his most visible, accessible, and infallible manifestation: Jesus. Setting aside other more interpretive literary arguments about the distinct choice to bring forth Jesus and thus the salvation of humanity through a woman, Mary, Jesus’ later interactions show a clear respect for women. First, Jesus’ inclusion of women in his inner group of disciples shatters social constructs of the time, in which women would not have engaged in public discourse or philosophical discussion . Even more so, Jesus’ close relationship with Mary Magdalene such that she was the first person he revealed himself to post-resurrection, shows a clear respect that was unprecedented for the time. In calling Mary Magdalene to become the first disciple by revealing himself to her and telling her to spread the news of his resurrection to the other disciples, Jesus clearly enfranchises Mary Magdalene, a woman, even amongst her male counterparts. Paul, despite his shortcomings in social equity issues, reiterates the unity of the Christian populace across gender divides. As he says in Galatians 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” More examples of this sentiment of unity appear repeatedly throughout the Bible, particularly in the New Testament, following Jesus’ dismantling of the Hebrew social structures from the Old Testament through the new law. However, the best imagery of Jesus’ interactions with women comes from the opposite personalities of two early Chris-
tian sisters, Mary and Martha. In Luke 10, the story about Jesus’ arrival at Mary and Martha’s home, Jesus actually admonishes Martha’s dutiful subservience, notably contradicting societal norms about the role of women in the household at the time. Instead, Jesus sides with Mary, who drops everything to worship Jesus, a clear display that religion supersedes societal roles and women control their own religious lives. Joel 2:28 says “I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy,” again emphasizing that both sons and daughters play an active role in the future spread of God’s message and glory. Thus, the biblical precedent for intergender relations clearly advocates for equality, defines the role and purpose of women clearly, and holds a far more nuanced stance than common criticisms claim. It would be hard to say that Christianity has all of the solutions to the topic of interThe employment of such gender relations or even just mansplaining respect in both secular and due to the complex- religious intergender interactions ity of the interactions. better reflects God’s call to love However, it does offer clear guidelines about all and unequivocally unifies the how to approach such body of believers further. issues. Essentially, the main key to keep in mind through all of your interactions, both evangelical and otherwise, is that no matter what people deserve respect and they will never even consider listening to you without it. The mutual respect goes both ways and from there a truly constructive dialogue can emerge. The employment of such respect in both secular and religious intergender interactions better reflects God’s call to love all and unequivocally unifies the body of believers further. r
Swarthmore Peripateo | 5
Doctrine of Development and the Development of Doctrine by Tobias Philip
The world exists in a state of
perpetual permutation, its innate engine of change burning as a Heraclitean fire. As for the permanence of thought, Gerard Manley Hopkins phrases it, “Man, how fast his firedint, | his mark on mind, is gone!...death blots black out; nor mark / Is any of him at all so stark / But vastness blurs and time | beats level.”1 Nonetheless, the great literary and philosophical treasures of antiquity appeal to us for the appearance, at the very least, of timeless applicability. We delight to find glimpses of what we may deem the essentially human be they in the overwhelming pathos of Antigone, the existential dilemma of Hamlet, or the archetypal aestheticism of Don Juan. These dramas doubtless exhibit characters in whose being we find something continuous with our own existence. Such ought to be the case also with the cosmic drama of Christianity. The Christian religion of old must also carry timeless principles, so as to have anything of value to the present. I will argue that the Christian religion is a living system growing from the initial principle of the incarnation, more definitely revealing and elaborating on itself throughout history. I will further argue that not every change constitutes a true development, but that it is necessary to distinguish between development and corruption. As an exercise of this logic of development, I will consider
whether Christianity may embrace contemporary secular sexual ethics while maintaining internal consistency. With a system held for so long and with such popular prevalence as the Christian Faith, it is necessary that its adherents may at times modify their religious practice according to the conditions of the world in
If the Christian faith is entirely subjective, then one can call something Christian only according to an entirely individual interpretation. In this sense the most disparate groups can contemporaneously exist with antithetical opinions as to what it means to be Christian. which they live. Christianity is generally believed to have been in existence after the first century C.E., but unless these Christians were able to preserve the precise historical circumstances which furnished the world in which Christ and his apostles preached, then there seems to be some essence of the faith, or at least some kernel of belief, which allows us to predicate the term
6 | Doctrine of Development and the Development of Doctrine
“Christian” of both Mary Magdalene and Mother Teresa, or of Saint Paul and Pope Francis. For Christians and non-Christians alike, I believe it may be a helpful exercise to determine what this idea of Christianity is and when we can call a change in Christian practice a real development. This investigation, however, must presume the existence of some objective Christianity. If the Christian faith is entirely subjective, then one can call something Christian only according to an entirely individual interpretation. In this sense the most disparate groups can contemporaneously exist with antithetical opinions as to what it means to be Christian. The polemics-flinging Westboro Baptists would have to share the faith of the progressive female Archbishop of the Lutheran Church of Sweden. Rather than speaking of any universally Christian beliefs, we must concede that all Christians are simply “a law to themselves.”2 Hence, it would be entirely unproductive to argue anything regarding the teaching of Christianity, unless there exists a Christianity which has a definite message to communicate. Furthermore, it is to be wondered what import Christianity really bears in the world, if any two individuals can extrapolate utterly bipolar meanings from it. Let us, then, draw the distinction between Christianity as a self-identifying
marker, and Christianity as the idea generally held to have been preached by Christ and his apostles. Next it must be clarified whether there can be said to exist a continuous Christian body of believers, which is to say, a Church. It was the great gnostic heresy in the first and second centuries of Christianity that first claimed an esoteric message behind Christ’s word attainable only to an enlightened few. One can believe very little in the world-transformative power of the incarnation, if it remained but a single point in history with no effect greater than the spatial and temporal limits of the person of Jesus Christ. To view Christianity as simply a historical fact, as is so often the risk when limiting its meaning to the unmediated communication between the Bible and the individual (if we should concede that purely unmediated communication between a a text so ingrained in culture and a person living in that culture on is even possible, not to mention the centuries-long mediation that resulted in the canonical Bible), would force the believer to reenter the historical circumstances of Christ in order to grasp the fullness of his message. On the other hand, it is not a historical contingency whence proceeds an idea, but an idea that takes root in historic contingency. That is the eternal Idea of the Incarnation. I believe that it is at this point helpful
Swarthmore Peripateo | 7
to introduce Hegelian language. Hegel believes religion to be the apprehension of the Absolute Being “in its own distinctive nature,” which is simply that which is. This Absolute is pre- and super-material, existing rather as Spirit or Mind, which for Hegel is both the essence and actuality of an existing thing.3 The Absolute Spirit, moreover, is conscious of itself as Spirit. That consciousness is something analogous to the Christian doctrine of the Logos, or God’s image of himself. As far as the religious endeavor goes, it must be an individual person, a self-conscious being, who pursues the Absolute Self. Spirit is known as self-consciousness, and to this self-consciousness it is directly revealed, for it is this self-consciousness itself. The divine nature is the same as the human, and it is this unity which is intuitively apprehended. This incarnation of the Divine Being, its having essentially and directly the shape of self-consciousness, is the simple content of individual religion.4 Hegel views the Incarnation as necessary, therefore, for the human and divine Spirit to regain their natural unity. Such unity is rendered impossible if the human being, as the subject of religious thought, can only relate to Absolute Being as an object. God is not a real self-consciousness to us unless made man and accessible to immediate perception. For God to be made man he must be made an actual individual. As a result, the historical contingencies of Christ’s birth in Roman Judea and his suffering under Pontius Pilate is made as essential to Christian doctrine as his dual nature as God and Man. It is equally essential that the incarnation be eternally relevant, beyond the historical Christ, else only the original disciples could have achieved the direct and immediate revelation of Divine Being. Just as the truth of the incarnation requires the individuality, historicity, and passability of the God-Man, so does the relevance of this revelation require the eternal endurance of the God-Man with humanity. Therefore, the resurrected
8 | Doctrine of Development and the Development of Doctrine
Christ assures his apostles “behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.”5 Either the addressees of these words were those eleven apostles, or their successors are implied recipients of the message as well. Since the consummation of the world did not transpire during the lives of the apostles, Christ must also be speaking to all those who succeed them through the course of time. It is clear then, if we should accept the Gospel accounts, that the incarnate God is present with humanity eternally through the ministers of that society which follows him, which we call the Church. Hence we reach the question of development, or how the Absolute Idea, which is the essence of Absolute Spirit, eternally abiding in the Church, manifests itself differently through time. It must be remembered that God, as consciousness, reveals himself through conscious Spirit, which is “real, what is self-establishing, has life within itself, existence in its very notion.”6 As a living consciousness, then, the Absolute Idea must take on varying forms with the development of the society in which it dwells eternally incarnate. Development is no new idea in Christianity, but rather finds clear expression as early as the fifth century with Saint Vincent of Lerins, who argues in favor of progress in doctrine: “For progress requires that the subject be enlarged in itself, alteration, that it be transformed into something else. The intelligence, then, the knowledge, the wisdom, as well of individuals as of all, as well of one man as of the whole Church, ought, in the course of ages and centuries, to increase and make much and vigorous progress; but yet only in its own kind; that is to say, in the same doctrine, in the same sense, and in the same meaning.”7 These last words, in Latin “eodem sensu eademque sententia,” would go on to be used by one of the most renowned masters of English prose in the nineteenth century, John Henry Cardinal Newman.
Since the publication of Cardinal New- of sexual ethics itself can qualify as ameman’s “An Essay on the Development of nable to development, as able to grow from Christian Doctrine,” the phrase “doctrinal Christianity itself without contradicting development” has dreadfully inflated the it. It may be helpful to regard Augustine’s marketplace of ideas with its overcircula- categorizations of the different natures of tion, often by those with incomplete knowl- laws within Christianity. Before convertedge of the Cardinal’s theory. Newman ing to Christianity, the young scholar was recognizes that very few developments can perplexed by the apparent variability of meet the qualifications for true develop- divine judgement; what was condemned at ment as defined by Saint Vincent, namely one point in the Scriptures, was approved “quod ubique, semper, et ab omnibus” (what at another. “Is justice, then,” Augustine has been believed everywhere, always, and asks, “various and changeable? Nay, but by all). Nonetheless, he asserts that devel- the times over which she presides are not opment occurs when an idea’s “beginnings all alike, because they are times.”10 There is, anticipate its subsequent phases, and its nonetheless, a distinction to be made belater phenomena tween those divine protect and subcommands that are Embellishment from a more 8 serve its earlier.” always and everyTo use Hegel’s primitive form is no counter- where valid, and analogy, “The bud those revealed with argument to the legitimacy disappears when regard to a tempoof any given development of the blossom breaks ral or locational through, and we doctrine, but contradiction of circumstance. The might say that the two great comprevious doctrine is. former is refuted mandments, in by the latter,” alwhich all the law though the blossom is but the natural de- consists, namely that one must love God velopment implicit in the bud itself.9 Em- with all one’s heart, and all his soul, and bellishment from a more primitive form with all his mind, and one’s neighbour as is no counterargument to the legitimacy oneself11—these, Augustine claims, are alof any given development of doctrine, but ways inviolable and immutable.12 contradiction of previous doctrine is. MoreOn the other hand, there are also cusover, the veracity of development, which toms of men which vary with time and does not contradict previous doctrine, can place. With regard to such custom, “an be corroborated by historical investigation agreement made, and confirmed by custom of the prevailing belief of the faithful, as or law of any city or nation, may not be vioexpressed in prayer, practice, and agreed lated at the lawless pleasure of any, whether theology. From this principle, Christians citizen or stranger,” in accordance with come to accept the canonical Bible, the Christian reverence for authority.13 Such Nicene Creed developed at the Ecumeni- obedience follows clearly from prudence cal Council of Nicea, and the very author- and the desire to maintain civic order. For ity of the apostolic faith itself. The divine example, concubinage, though never proconsciousness finds itself expressed in the claimed as divine law, was at least implicuniversal Spirit of the faithful, and so the itly acknowledged as permissible according faith’s continuous elaboration in the life of to the customs of the Jewish people at one the Church is ground enough for its truth. point in the Bible, then came to pass away Finally we may proceed to the concrete as customs progressed.14 As far as sexual example of sexual ethics. I will not enter the ethics are concerned, societal measures to specifics of what can be considered Chris- assure modesty and propriety are surely tianly permissible, but rather consider what variable but sensible boundaries to ensure
Swarthmore Peripateo | 9
against cupidity, which orders a particular away from the universal good. Development can easily be applied here, since a Christian ethic can most certainly change according to the situation of local and temporal custom. It is for this reason, that the literal meaning of Saint Paul’s commands regarding head covering can be often disregarded in contexts where such covering no longer carries the implication of reverence and modesty that it did in first century Corinth.15 When these customs contradict a divine ordinance, however, “[the divine ordinance] is to be done; and if intermitted it is to be restored, and, if never established, to be established.”16 The remaining sort of law that Augustine outlines is the natural. For Augustine it follows from the two greatest commandments that “those offenses which be contrary to nature are everywhere and at all times to be held in detestation.”17 That which intrinsically offends the dignity of humanity, a dignity essential to the principle of the incarnation, must always fall under this category. For this reason, the subject of sexual morality has been handled so strictly, although with different mores and specificities according to time and place, because the exercise of lust has been always deemed so offensive to the dignity of a spiritualized human being, that is to say, a Christian, whose active being as human is divine. Furthermore, those sins which damage the ability of man to selflessly love his fellow man must indeed offend against the two greatest commandments, since “that same nature of which [God] is author is polluted by the perversity of lust.”18 When an individual
views another as a sexual object, as opposed to a complete human being fully deserving of love, the relationship may not be one of Christian charity. Over the centuries, therefore, Christian teaching has determined that the unitive and procreative functions of sexual acts must never be actively separated, so as to prevent sexual relationships from ever being subordinated to lust. As a result, sexual activity is bounded to Church affirmed circumstances according to fundamental judgements on human nature. It must lastly be decided whether traditional teaching on sex and marriage can suffer change. As demonstrated previously from the classifications of laws, to argue Christian teachings on sex and marriage can take new forms is to argue that human sexuality is a matter not of natural law but of custom, and can therefore change over time. Either sexual activity continues to arise from the same essential motivations and intrinsically produces the same results as it did throughout the historical consciousness of the Church, or these aspects of human nature have evolved in the past two thousand years. If we should hold the former of the propositions, then we cannot maintain that Christian sexual morality can agree with the violent vicissitudes of post-modernity without contradiction. Otherwise, it remains to prove that Christianity can indeed contradict itself as part of its process of development. In this case, earlier questions must be revisited, and the objective entity of Christianity and the life of Christ in his Church must be reevaluated. It has not been the purpose of this essay to explore the nu-
10 | Doctrine of Development and the Development of Doctrine
ances of Christian sexual morality over the history of the Church, although I can only imagine how edifying such an endeavor may be. I have, however, sought to reconcile the essential language of Hegelian idealism with Cardinal Newman’s articulation of Doctrinal Development. I consign this insufficient undertaking to a thought experiment, valuable if only for the assonance of the juxtaposed “Doctrine of Development” and “Development of Doctrine.” Hegel’s application of his theory to Church History, I believe, fails to reach the conclusions implicit in its formulation. Truly, in the divine Word there can be no contradiction, but only fulfillment. That fulfillment reveals itself like an ever expanding patterned tapestry, always perfect in any given stage, but weaved and elaborated over time, without any excisions from earlier work. For the Church to contradict its formerly unanimously and univocally professed propositions is a precarious path that leads to perdition. r Endnotes 1. Gerard Manley Hopkins, “That Nature is a Heraclitean Fire and the Comfort of the Resurrection,” Poems, (London: Humphrey Milford, 1918), Bartleby.com, 1999. 2. Romans 2:14. 3. Georg W. F Hegel and J B. Baillie, The Phenomenology of Mind: Translated, with an Introduction and Notes by J.b. Baillie, (London: Allen & Unwin, 1971), 685.
4. Ibid., 759-760. 5. Matthew 28:20. John 16:33. 6. Hegel, 105. 7. Saint Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory, Translated by C.A. Heurtley, From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 11, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1894), Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. 8. John Henry Cardinal Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, (16th impr.; London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1920), 171. 9. Hegel, 68. 10. Augustine, Confessions, Translated by J.G. Pilkington. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 1, Edited by Philip Schaff, (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1887), revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight, Book 3, Chapter 7, <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/110103.htm>. 11. Matthew 22:37. 12. Augustine, Book 3, Chapter 7. 13. Augustine, Book 3, Chapter 8. 14. See the domestic situation of Jacob, for example. 15. 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. 16. Augustine, Book 3, Chapter 8. 17. Ibid. 18. Ibid.
Swarthmore Peripateo | 11
Building Christ's Beautifully Diverse Kingdom by Michael Broughton
“11am on Sunday morning,” as a
widely-circulated saying points out, “is the most segregated hour of the week in America.” While a bit trite, this phrase has an element of truth to it. Even though many would argue that levels of racial diversity and integration in general have progressed over the past several decades, Protestant Christian churches remain some of the most ethnically homogenous communities in American existence. This is not too difficult to notice. Conjure up an image of a typical congregation of any sort—Presbyterian, AME, Pentecostal, Lutheran, nondenominational—and I highly doubt that the population you’re thinking of could be considered racially diverse. America’s historically unpleasant relationship with race has shaped the segregated church that we see today. In particular, the segregation that exists between black and white Christians is a direct result of slavery, as well as the later legal segregation that prevailed during the Jim Crow era. Af-
rican Americans’ experience with Christi- has historically perpetuated (and in many anity began during the time of slavery, so ways continues to do so). from the beginning the black church was Since it has been the case for so long, already on severely unequal terms from its it can be tempting to think that separation white counterpart. Jim Crow segregation, between Christians along racial lines is norwhich lasted from the mal or a non-issue. end of slavery until Many of us are at the mid-20th century, the point where we The Body of Christ most prevented most kinds take segregation effectively glorifies God of meaningful interas a given and can action between blacks when it reflects the fullness work comfortably and whites. It quite within its confines. of the ethnic diversity literally gave blacks I, however, believe that humanity has been and whites differthat racial and ethent levels of legallynic divisions are blessed with. recognized humanity, actually contrary and ascribed further to God’s desire for inequality to the ways in which black and the Church. The Body of Christ most efwhite communities were able to develop. fectively glorifies God when it reflects the This naturally spilled over into every as- fullness of the ethnic diversity that humanpect of life, including religious faith and ity has been blessed with. practice. The fact that we have “black” and This has eternal significance. The Book “white” churches at all today is a direct re- of Revelation offers a strikingly colorful sult of the segregated society that America picture of the Kingdom of God that will
12 | Building Christ's Beautifully Diverse Kingdom
reign after Christ’s return. This kingdom is described as containing “a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb.”1 When Jesus returns to restore everything to its full glory, ethnic diversity will play a key role in the beauty of humanity. The ethnic differences between us, rather than being hijacked for segregation or oppression, will instead be an essential part of our restoration and our ability to glorify God as one unified group of believers. Christians don’t have to wait until Christ’s return, though, to start appreciating racial and ethnic diversity in their daily lives. Since every congregation should strive to be a small-scale reflection of God’s kingdom, it stands to reason that a healthy church should seek to comprise people from all kinds of ethnic backgrounds. The early church was no stranger to racial prejudice, and some of the most fruitful congre-
gations that we read about in the Book of showed Peter, however, that he had no right Acts modeled ethnic diversity effectively. to reject contact with anything that God For example, Acts 11 describes the apostle had made clean.4 This idea was to be apPeter facing criticism from fellow ethni- plied directly to the way that Peter had been cally Jewish believers, because they saw discriminatory in his dealings with nonJewish believers. him socializing with The ethnic differences Peter described non-Jewish believthis vision to the ers. Peter would between us, rather than Jewish believers in have sympathized hijacked for segregation or response to their with their prejudice earlier in his career, oppression, will instead be an criticism, and further explained that but since then God essential part of our he had witnessed had shown him a vision that changed his restoration and our ability to the Holy Spirit fall worldview completeglorify God as one unified on a group of nonJewish believers just ly. In this vision, God group of believers. as he had on the commanded Peter to Jews at Pentecost. “kill and eat” an as“If… God gave the sortment of animals that, according to Jewish law, were consid- same gift to them as he gave to us when ered unclean.2 Although he received this we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ,” Peter imperative directly from God, Peter resist- reasoned, “who was I that I could stand in ed, on the basis that nothing “common or God’s way?”5 God had shown Peter, both unclean” had ever entered his mouth.3 God supernaturally and via a life experience, that
Swarthmore Peripateo | 13
the body of Christ is a place for all who call can descent, were serving in the leadership upon the name of Jesus, regardless of color of the Antioch church alongside Jews like or ethnic origin. Barnabas, Saul (also known as Paul), and Immediately after Peter’s encounter Manaen. with these Jewish believers, Acts goes on The church in Antioch, with its signifito describe the success of the congrega- cant amount of racial and ethnic diversity, tion in Antioch. People from various re- was the first congregation in which the begions, including both Jews and non-Jews, lievers were called Christians.8 Since this is were present in this church preaching and the very label we use for ourselves as believlearning about Jesus. God made the efforts ers today, why would we not try to emulate of this congregation particularly fruitful; this picture of diversity every chance we the text says that “the hand of the Lord get? I believe that if we made our churches was with them, and today look more like a great number who the one in Antioch, believed turned to Why would we not try to we might find them the Lord.”6 What similarly fruitful emulate this picture of really set this church and effective. diversity every chance we apart, though, was I recently had the seamless ethnic the opportunity to get? diversity present in see what efforts tothe population of ward diversifying the church. Acts 13 begins with a list of our congregations look like in action. Over the prophets and teachers there, including this past spring break, I was part of a ser“Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, vice trip to the John and Vera Mae Perkins Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen, a lifelong friend Foundation in Jackson, Mississippi. This of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.”7 This foundation, started by civil rights leaders most definitely qualifies as a diverse group. John Perkins and his wife Vera Mae, fo“Niger,” Simeon’s nickname, literally means cuses on addressing issues of racial tension “black.” Lucius was from Cyrene, which and systemic injustice through the lens of was a city in the North African country of the Christian gospel. Part of the Perkins’ Libya. These two men, likely both of Afri- mission involves building strong Chris-
14 | Building Christ's Beautifully Diverse Kingdom
tian communities that bridge racial gaps in racially segregated areas, and a key element of this is the planting of intentionally multiethnic churches. I visited one of these churches during my time in Jackson, and was completely shocked. The service began with musical worship, and the songs were contemporary ones you might hear in a typical white evangelical church. The singing was led, however, by a multiethnic worship team that presented the songs in a musical style closer to gospel. Then, the pastor preached in a style consistent with his native African American tradition, yet the sermon’s length and subject matter could have easily belonged in a more mainstream evangelical service. We ended the service by singing a traditional Negro spiritual, but the worship team gave it more of a poprock feel. I could clearly perceive the cultural differences between black and white worship styles and faith expressions at this church, yet everything was woven together seamlessly into a service that brought glory to God. The diversity and cooperative ministry that made the church in ancient Antioch so distinct were patently visible in this modern-day American church. Additionally, I could tell that this church was a fruitful community that regularly drew people
in the neighborhood closer to Christ—just like the church in Antioch did. The issues of race, segregation, and their relationship to Christian faith had been on my heart both before and during the spring break trip. Visiting that church, and serving in other ways with the Perkins foundation, made it clear to me that the gospel is powerful enough to not only reach across our racial differences, but also use them to bring further glory to God. The American church has a lot more work to do in terms of reconciliation and equality; integrated worship services won’t on their own solve structural issues. However, catching glimpses of Christ’s beautifully diverse kingdom both in scripture and in person has given me real hope, and has inspired me to do all I can to help bring his kingdom to Earth. r Endnotes 1. Rev. 7:9, ESV 2. Acts 11:7, ESV; see Lev. 11 3. Acts 11:8, ESV 4. Acts 11:9 5. Acts 11:17, ESV 6. Acts 11:21, ESV 7. Acts 13:1, ESV 8. Acts 11:26, ESV
Swarthmore Peripateo | 15
Understanding Homosexualit in Biblical and Contemporar
Last semester, a lot of ink was spilled, state-
ments made, and protests enacted over the perennial issue of Intervarsity’s (and by extensions SCF’s) stance on Christianity and LGBTQ issues. But in the furor over what the administration may or may not do and how the Christian community should organize itself, there has been little theological discussion. Reading over the quotes of SCF members in the Swarthmore Voices article, and commentary in campus publications, I was surprised at the vagueness of arguments on both sides: “you can context your way out of anything” on the non-affirming side, and little more than “Jesus never said anything about it” on the affirming side. These are obviously deficient—the Bible is inscrutable (and uninteresting) when read outside of its historical and moral context, and while Jesus never mentioned homosexuality explicitly, Paul certainly did, as did most every Church Father. In this article, I want to start a respectful, faithful conversation about this complex topic. The focus will be narrow: I have no desire to talk about campus politics, and I’ll be dealing only with the Biblical passages on homosexuality (the topic of transgender deserves to be discussed in a separate article by someone who knows more than me). This won’t settle the debate, of course: abstract arguments rarely do, and I’m speaking without any church authority or theological qualifications (I suppose student publications take what they can get). But I hope to
show a brief overview of the “affirming” stance by first dealing with the issue of Biblical interpretation, then what the Bible says about marriage, and finally with some of what are known as the “clobber verses:” the seven passages (out of roughly 31,000 verses!) that directly mention homosexuality. A criticism often made of the affirming case is that it undermines Biblical authority by relativizing scripture. The accusation that liberals (on this issue) who emphasize reading Leviticus and Paul in light of their respective histories “context their way out of anything,” reducing specific Biblical claims to vague calls to justice and love, is actually not without some merit. I’m baptized and confirmed in the Episcopal church, and there can often be a tendency to gloss over or intellectualize parts of the Bible we find uncomfortable. And I actually think Mainliners are more guilty of this than those in other denominations. I can’t recall gay marriage being explored in anything more than a cursory way in my church; it was like the issue was so clear it didn’t merit any discussion. That was a mistake. Paul is not some backwards preacher to be left in the past, nor was he a passive supporter of cultural norms during his time. If Christians say the Bible is the Word of God, it requires serious thought and reflection, not just appropriation of the parts we like. Of course, the opposite and equal sin is to hold the Bible over
16 | Understanding Homosexuality in Biblical and Contemporary Times
ty ry Times by James Sutton
and against tradition, reason, and experience. That is a false choice. tians in Acts to stop keeping kosher “caused people to go back to Sola Scriptura is actually self-refuting, given that the Bible did the biblical texts and read them with fresh eyes—looking more not descend in one piece from the heavens, but was written over deeply and searching for different underlying values and forms of thousands of years and not canonized until centuries after Christ, moral logic that they had not seen so clearly before.”1 And these by church authorities using tradition, reason, and experience (and are not simply cases of human reason being used to “disprove” the of course aided by the Holy Spirit). To assume the Bible should Bible or obeying divine voices from the blue. The “leading of the be read “out of context” (whatever that means), is wrong, and I Holy Spirit” spoken of in Acts means a complex process of prayer, don’t believe anyone who is serious can behistory, wisdom, and experience interactlieve that consistently. It would be absurd ing to form what we call “discernment.” to eliminate historical context from pro- But the fact is, marriage in the The early Christian community chose to hibitions on men wearing their hair long, not only defy Old Testament law but also Bible continually evolves. on the complex interplay of Jesus’ teachings the urgings of Jesus, who commanded his with contemporary morality, and the asfollowers to keep the old law 2: the Christ sumption that slavery is normal and tolerpresent in his Church is not quite the able found in the Bible. In fact, to really understand what God is same thing as the Jesus of history. saying to us in the Bible, we have to understand the moral logic Those on the traditionalist side of the debate often claim that behind claims made by the Old Testament writers and Paul. In the Bible teaches marriage is between a man and a woman, or at his exhaustive survey of the Biblical passages dealing with homo- least between men and women. But the fact is, marriage in the sexuality, Bible, Gender, Sexuality, Biblical scholar James Brownson Bible continually evolves. While the first marriage between Adam discusses how the conversations the church is now having about and Eve may seem fairly normal to our modern ears, the rest of the LGBTQ Christians mirror previous encounters with social chang- Old Testament is filled with examples of polygamy, which was cones that conflicted with Biblical assumptions. Debates over slavery, demned in the New Testament and the early Church. But even the over women in leadership, and even the decisions of Jewish Chris- people described in the New Testament would have been entirely
Swarthmore Peripateo | 17
comfortable with many kinds of marriage that Christians today reject: significant age differences (including between children and adults), cousins marrying cousins, and marriages in which the wife has essentially no independence. The question, then, is to separate the moral logic (to use Brownson’s term) behind marriage from what is a cultural assumption in the Bible. It’s helpful to think about it in terms of background and foreground: some things (like polygamy and slavery) may be in the front of the Biblical “stage,” but the background (selfgiving love, compassion, fairness) is what really matters. Fine, answer many traditionalists. The moral logic of the Bible is still incompatible with gay marriage—marriage is presented as procreative and, importantly, complementary—that is, men and women were made for each other, and we don’t get to seperate our inner experience from our outer reality. This argument about complementarity mostly rests on the quotation “Therefore a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.”3 The language the Bible uses to describe marriage is that of the “one flesh” bond. While some traditionalists interpret this as saying that marriage essentially makes human beings “complete,” uniting an original whole, Brownson notes this is incorrect. For example, a man “leaving his father and mother” to become “one flesh” with his wife, does not mean that a man strikes out on his own and establishes the bond of intimacy with his spouse. Men in the ancient Mediterranean would live on their parents’ property with their wives, first of all. The “one flesh” language points to an establishment of new kinship bond, which
18 | Understanding Homosexuality in Biblical and Contemporary Times
is related to sexual intimacy but was not always the same thing. Additionally, the idea of humans only being “complete” when united with the opposite sex in marriage subordinates single people by asserting that the imago dei is somehow less expressed in them, an odd assumption given the facts that Jesus, Paul, and every nun and monk throughout history were celibate (well, ideally every monk and nun). The argument from procreation is also flawed in light of the Bible and Church tradition. Brownson notes that the “entire discussion of ‘one flesh’ in Genesis (and indeed, throughout the Bible) takes place without even a hint of concern for procreation.”1 Paul writes rather confusingly of marriage, relegating it to basically a fallback option, but then hesitantly saying the union might be compared to “Christ and his Church.”4 Again, no mention whatsoever of procreation. It is worth noting that comparing the Church to the “Bride of Christ” does not exactly lend itself to gender complementarity, as well. Throughout the Bible, marriages that produce no children are regarded as valid, and even Roman Catholics allow marriage between infertile partners. While having children can be an example of the self-giving love embodied in the “one flesh” bond, it is not essential to it. And raising children is by no means the exclusive province of heterosexuals. So how then might we think about marriage as Christians? What is the moral logic behind marriage and intimacy in the Bible? As an unmarried 19 year old, I think it’s best to defer to someone with more authority than myself. The former Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, in an essay entitled “The Body’s Grace,” put into
words what I cannot really do justice to (I highly recommend reading it for yourself ). He says that love, sex, and marriage are about “how much we want our bodily selves to mean rather than what emotional needs we're meeting or what laws we're satisfying.”5 And as Paul said, “Does this mean that we are using faith to undermine law? By no means: we are placing law itself on a firmer footing!”5 For Williams, and for affirming Christians, intimacy is understood as grace, as a further expression of the divine love that delights in us and forms us. Williams: “We are led into the knowledge that our identity is being made in the relations of bodies, not by the private exercise of will or fantasy: we belong with and to each other, not to our "private" selves (as Paul said of mutual sexual commitment), and yet are not instruments for each other's gratification.” To belong with and to each other is risky, is often unsettling, and does not line up neatly with the individualism of our secular culture. But maybe it can be “like Christ and his Church.” Now that I’ve cleared up some misconceptions about marriage in the Bible, the passage that most explicitly mentions homosexuality should be examined. I’ll put it here in full: “Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and
in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.”7 Here Paul is describing the behavior of Roman citizens in his (in)famous epistle. While there are other mentions of homosexuality in the New Testament, they appear in lists of other sins—this passage is the only one that expands upon it. In its larger context, this passage is one among a succession, which identifies the universality of human sin. Then, after stirring his readers to indignant heights, Paul points out their hypocrisy in Romans 2:1: “Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, For Paul, excessive lust was a when you judge others; manifestation of the human for in passing judgement on another you condemn desire to elevate oneself at the yourself because you, the expense of others, to acquire judge, are doing the very honor by degrading others. same things.” Rhetorically brilliant, but also puzzling. Given that Romans 1 is written to first get readers on Paul’s side by identifying behaviors they would regard as contemptible, how could they be “doing the same thing” as the Romans he condemns in the previous chapter? The recipients of Paul’s epistle were not, in fact, engaging in the homosexual acts he condemns. But they were committing the sin of judgmentalism, and Paul equates it with the out-of-control lust of Romans 1. For Paul, excessive lust was a manifestation of the human desire to elevate oneself at the expense of others, to acquire honor by de-
Swarthmore Peripateo | 19
grading others. In Romans, judgmentalism and excessive lust exist on the same spectrum. Homosexual acts are identified as men (whether this text refers to homosexual women is unclear) leaving “natural” sexual activity for “unnatural” to satisfy their unbounded desires. With what we know about views of homosexuality in Paul’s era, this is an entirely non-controversial claim. There was no concept of homosexual “orientation;” there were only men who were so lustful, so desirous of dominance that they slept with other men. And this did in fact happen. Many Biblical scholars view Romans as directly referencing the court of the Emperor Caligula, whose excesses might But whether or not Romans is have included raping talking about excessive lust in general young boys and his sisIn fact, Brownson or the Emperor specifically, it is miles ters. notes the mention of the removed from our modern sinners receiving “their knowledge of sexual orientation, just reward” could easily be a reference to Calwhich is generally innate and highly igula’s murder by being resistant to change. stabbed in the genitals. But whether or not Romans is talking about excessive lust in general or the Emperor specifically, it is miles removed from our modern knowledge of sexual orientation, which is generally innate and highly resistant to change. Modern gay couples who wish to enter a sanctified, covenantal marriage before God could hardly be accused of having “excessive” lust, given that their relationships would not display any of the self-seeking, intense, and deeply destructive behavior of the men in Romans. And moreover, queer men and women do not “leave behind” any kind of “natural” relations. That would imply being heterosexual in the first place. They are not. They simply
20 | Understanding Homosexuality in Biblical and Contemporary Times
are how they are, members of the created universe and bearers of the imago dei in the same ways as straight people. That is why almost every modern Christian who does not affirm same sex marriage is left in a very strange position: arguing for what Williams calls the “extraordinary idea that sexual orientation is an automatic pointer to the celibate life; almost as if celibacy before God is less costly, even less risky, for the homosexual than the heterosexual.” This view fundamentally distorts the time-honored tradition of celibate vocation in the Church, first of all. But more importantly for my purposes here, it draws a line between homosexual orientation and homosexual behavior that cannot be argued from Scripture. In the Bible, homosexual behavior is a manifestation of excessive lust; destructive inner desires causing sinful outward behavior. In the Gospels, Jesus lays out a similar moral code in his (intentionally hyperbolic) equation of anger towards a neighbor with murder. For a Christian, anger must be repented of as well as violence, and hopefully that process of continual repentance leads to a path away from anger. If this moral logic is applied consistently, a gay, celibate Christian who continues to experience her innate and persistent feelings of romantic love, attraction, and affection for members of the same sex must possess a disordered and sinful inner state that she must repent of. It is difficult even to say where the line can be drawn; certainly not just at sex. What about inadvertently falling in love, or simple attraction? What about admiring a beautiful person? What about basic friendship with a person of the same sex? Even the ontology of Christians who accept and practice this “welcoming but not affirming” approach is Biblically wrong: Paul is saying their “sinful desires” stem
from a dangerously lustful and prideful in- “great cloud of witnesses,” even if they were terior state, not any kind of sexual orienta- only ever told they were condemned during tion. Romans simply does not describe the their lives. I think about Christians from experience of gay Christians today. my own tradition: the rector of my parish All of this does not necessarily mandate in the 1970s, who came out in a sermon to the acceptance of queer his congregation, love in the Church. Every sham marriage, every before there had There could plausibly child kicked out of the home, been any glimmer be other arguments of the Church every AIDs sufferer left that gay marriage is beginning to incompatible with untreated like a modern-day change. The gay Christianity; most Christians who leper should be mourned by prominently the Rohave been felthe Church. man Catholic belief in low parishioners, procreative marriage. chaplains, and They just wouldn’t have very much to do ministers. And the great Anglican hymn with what Paul and the rest of the Bible “My Song is Love Unknown,” set to a actually say. And the fact of the matter is “melody of ineffable tenderness” by the that the Church’s rejection of gay people composer John Ireland, a repressed gay man has been one of its greatest sins—you don’t in 1920s Britain who somehow managed to need to be affirming to recognize this retain the hope of Christ’s saving love: point. The Church has caused people to live My song is love unknown, their lives in fear, without hope or underMy Saviour’s love to me; standing, condemning something that is at Love to the loveless shown, the core of their being. Every sham marThat they might lovely be. riage, every child kicked out of the home, O who am I, every AIDs sufferer left untreated like a That for my sake modern-day leper should be mourned by My Lord should take the Church. And while the recent moderaFrail flesh, and die? r tion of most conservative churches is certainly an improvement, mandating the vocation (a contradiction in terms) of celibacy to queer Christians results in outcomes that Endnotes are hardly representative of the “good fruit” 1. Brownson, James V. Bible, Gender, SexuChrist promises: higher rates of depression, ality: Reframing the Church's Debate on loss of faith, and suicide. Same-Sex Relationships. Eerdmans, 2013. What is extraordinary to a straight per- 2. Matthew 5:18 son like myself is the simple truth there 3. Genesis 2:24 have always been gay Christians. With- 4. Ephesians 5:32 out any comfort from the Church, with a 5. Williams, Rowan. “The Body's Grace.” numbing lack of hope and understanding, Michael Harding Memorial Address. 1989. gay people have somehow stayed in, time 6. Romans 3:31 and time again, and are surely present in the 7. Romans 1:24-27
Swarthmore Peripateo | 21
In Memoriam:
Reverend Billy Graham By Adam Schauer
Rev. Billy Graham, one of the most skilled rhe
toricians and prolific evangelists in history, died peacefully on February 21st, 2018. As a Baptist minister, Graham held large events called “Crusades,” spurring a spiritual revival in the 1950s and 60s. Using the content of these Crusades, Graham became one of the first users of television for the purpose of broadcasting his sermons to even larger audiences, known as “televangelism.” Graham has been credited with converting millions of people with his unique method to spread the call for salvation, reaching at least two billion people worldwide. Graham most famously converted Louis Zamperini, documented in Zamperini’s biography Unbroken, and served as a chief spiritual council to numerous US presidents, especially Jimmy Carter. With unquestionable leadership skills and a strong ethical code, Graham influenced many people to make more informed ethical decisions in all parts of their lives, from the President’s role in the Cold War to individual family religious practices. As far as Swarthmore is concerned, Graham’s legacy lives on in many tangible ways. As a social advocate and active voice, a number of people on campus no doubt identify and look up to Graham’s strong standard for justice, especially regarding civil rights. Despite his Southern roots, Graham notably spurned racial inequality, and his message transcended the staunch division in the country during such times of tension. Whether or not you believe in evangelism or even Christianity, Rev. Graham served
22 | In Memoriam: Reverend Billy Graham
an integral role in the direction of the US spiritually, ethically, and politically. As a strong influence on Southern conservative evangelicals, Graham’s work no doubt has helped begin to turn the tide on issues of acceptance, identity, and forgiveness. On a personal level, my grandfather attended one of Rev. Graham’s fabled talks at Atlanta-Fulton County Stadium in Atlanta, Georgia in 1973. At Rev. Graham’s call, my grandfather walked down the aisle and gave his life to Christ while “Amazing Grace” played in the background. At my grandfather’s unfortunately early death at the age of 52 to colon cancer, his friends gathered around him and sang that same song, “Amazing Grace,” as he passed away. Without the influence and work of Rev. Graham, my grandfather would not be with the Lord today, nor would I necessarily be a Christian myself. This same story applies to millions of people worldwide, and Rev. Graham’s legacy lives on in this way. For these reasons and so many more, Rev. Graham will be remembered as one of the most influential church leaders and strongest examples of Christian character for generations to come. In his grandiose speeches and even his individual relationships, Rev. Graham was revered for his approachable demeanor and amicability, no doubt contributing to his capabilities as a rhetorician. His personal philosophical and theological beliefs influence evangelical methods to this day. While the world may have lost one of its greatest men, heaven certainly gained another passionate believer, dedicated to the service of Christ. r
Yet Grace Would Set Me Free By Sawyer Lake
“I’m good-natured” I thought, thinking virtue my own. Little was I aware, of Your Almighty Throne. I was utterly lost, a veil before my eyes. All I claimed to have: a pseudo-righteous guise. With pride an ocean deep, my heart refused to see, the weight of the event, that happened on a tree. Why do I need saving? My sins unclear to me. No excuse was valid, yet Grace would set me free. I had a heart of stone, but You loved me still. You chased down my heart, You had Your perfect will. Once living for moments, things subject to time, now with Jesus Christ, His endless love is mine. I neglected Your love, but You soon made me see. Love is not love, apart from Thee.
Yet grace would set me free | 23
PERIPATEO CONTRIBUTORS AND STAFF Emily Audet '18
Michael Broughton '19
Emily is an Arabic and History double major from Massachusetts. Michael is wrong: double fudge brownie is the best ice cream flavor ever.
Michael is a junior from Detroit, Michigan with academic interests in Linguistics and Arabic. He firmly believes that chocolate chip ice cream is the best ice cream.
Tim Greco '19
Juhyae Kim '19
Tim is an engineering major from Lexington, Massachusetts. He takes pictures.
Juhyae is from St. Louis, MO and is a Linguistics major and Educational studies minor. She enjoys taking Buzzfeed quizzes to find out what dog breed she would be.
Irene Tang '19
Jasmine Betancourt '20
Irene is from sunny California. To date, she has changed her major three and a half times. Irene enjoys the great outdoors and dreams of shepparding lonely animals into loving homes.
"Jasmine, you need to submit your bio now." "Ahhh, I don't know just put down whatever."
Sawyer Lake '20
Tobias Philip '20
Texan. Loves Frank Sinatra.
Heâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s sometimes Socratic On rare days Sophistic Mostly unproblematic If a tad too Thomistic
Rebecca Sanders '21
Adam Schauer '20
Rebecca is from Phoenix, Arizona, the land of cacti and rattlesnakes. She is a prospective Greek and Latin major and loves dogs.
Adam is an Engineering and Economics double major from THE nation's capital. When he's not reading about baseball, he's probably listening to baseball, and when he's not listening to baseball, he's probably watching baseball, and when he's not watching baseball, he's playing baseball.
James Sutton '21
Daniel Swanson '21
James is from San Francisco, California, a state he thinks about longingly whenever itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s snowing in Swar thmore. He hopes to major in History, loves all racquet spor ts, and is unapologetically a Warriors fan.
Daniel is from Minnesota and plans to major in Math and Linguistics. He probably has more neckties than you.
24 | Peripateo Contributors and Staff
Selah.
Pause. Breathe. Think of that.
סֶלָה
