Swarthmore Peripateo (Vol 4, Issue 2) by Swarthmore Peripateo

Volume 4, Issue 2 | Spring 2016

Peripateo The Swarthmore College Journal of Christian Discourse

Also in this issue: Lending and Borrowing: A Christian Perspective by Roy Walker

Strangely Justified by Rebecca Griest

The Stones Cry Out: Reflections on Israel/Palestine

by Emily Audet

A Letter from the Editor Dear Reader,

The questions of God - whether he is real, what form he takes, and what his nature is, to name but a few - are some of the most frequently debated questions in human history. So much has been thought, written, and spoken on the topic of divinity that it boggles the mind and it may be hard to see what further discussion on the topic could accomplish. The purpose of this Journal, however, is not to educate, instruct, or persuade, but rather to invite you into conversation. We hope that this Journal provides a small understanding of the role and significance of faith in the lives of Christians on this campus. We, the staff and writers of Peripateo, are convinced that God is real, and that he has revealed himself and his character to us through the Bible, his Holy Scripture. We have not arrived at that conclusion thoughtlessly, but rather after searching for and, ultimately, encountering God. We would like to share with you excerpts of our journeys. Peripateo is the Greek word meaning “to walk around in.” We invite you, dear reader, to walk around in the questions of God with us, as we explore God; who he is and why his existence changes every aspect of our lives, from how we view spending our money and time to our approach to sports, vacations, language, marriage, and even our work. Some of the pieces in this Journal approach faith from a highly academic lens, while others are intensely personal. We believe that both approaches are important in furthering our understanding of what it means to know and follow God. We invite you to walk around with us and think about prayer, in Juhyae Kim’s piece “Prayer, Relationship, and Depending on God” and to perambulate on the subject of being a Christian in the world of Athletics with Ryan Meuth’s “Questions of a Christian Athlete.” We further encourage you to listen as Emily Audet recounts the story of a trip to Israel/Palestine in “The Stones Cry Out” and the disappointment she felt at the lack of concern for suffering among Christian tourists, and as Rebecca Griest describes her struggles with perfectionism and faith in “Strangely Justified.” Finally, we welcome you to enjoy Selah, or rest, with us after a long day of walking around.

Nate Lamb Editor-In-Chief

i | Letter from the Editor

IN THIS ISSUE Divorce, Remarriage, and 2 Catholicism

Essays & Ar ticles

by Greg Brown

Lending and Borrowing: A 16 Christian Perspective by Roy Walker

Tainted Water : A Christian 24 Perspective on Cursing Grace Like Rain 14 Ar t & Poetry Soar

by Rebecca Zhou

One Day in Bond Hall 15 by Nathan Scalise

Prayer, Relationship, and 9 Reflections Depending on God by Juhyae Kim

The Stones Cry Out: 12 Reflections on Israel/Palestine by Emily Audet

Questions of a Christian 20 Athlete by Ryan Meuth

Strangely Justified 22 by Rebecca Griest

Peripateo

The Swarthmore College Journal of Christian Discourse

Editorial Staff

Nate Lamb ’17 Roy Walker ’16 Emily Audet ’18

Nicholas Zahorodny ’16 Nathan Scalise ’16 Juhyae Kim ’19 Michael Broughton II ’19 Matthew Olivencia ’18 Rebecca Zhou ’19 Irene Tang ’19

Editor-in-Chief Business Manager Editor Design Manager Photography Editor Editor Editor Editor Editor Editor Design Editor Design

Contributors

Greg Brown ’16 Rebecca Griest ’16 Ryan Meuth’17 Nathan Scalise ’16 Roy Walker ’16 Emily Audet ’18 Michael Broughton II ’19 Juhyae Kim ’19 Rebecca Zhou ’19

Who We Are

Peripateo seeks to reconcile faith and academia by

engaging religious issues through an intellectual lens. We believe that the message of Jesus Christ has pow-

erful implications for our daily lives and the world at large. We aim 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?

Swarthmore Peripateo | 1

Divorce, Remarriage, and Catholicism by Greg Brown

The Catholic Church’s Synod of Bish- adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced

ops convened in October 2014 and October 2015 to discuss the family; on April 8, 2016, Pope Francis released a post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia—on the joy of love. Though the assemblies addressed a number of difficulties faced by families in the modern, Western and non-Western world, much discussion focused on the question of whether divorced and civilly remarried Catholics may be admitted to receive the Holy Eucharist. There has been a lot of discussion as to how the document should be interpreted. Although it runs a lengthy 256 pages, it is difficult to find a direct answer to this specific question. In this essay, I explain, first of all, what the big deal is here. I consider the Church’s reasons for its practice and the proposed reasons for change. Finally, I take a look at Amoris Laetitia. Scripture on Indissolubility To appreciate why Catholics think as they do about marriage, one has to look to scripture. As Catholics understand it, marriage is indissoluble. Jesus is absolutely adamant on this point: “what therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”1 It is, furthermore, monogamous, and it is impossible to enter multiple marriages. This monogamy is a presupposition, which Jesus doesn’t reject, of the Sadducees’ challenge to Jesus over the resurrection,2 but it’s also engendered by Jesus’s—and St. Paul’s—repeated reaffirmation of the Genesis understanding of marriage, whereby a man and woman become “one flesh.”3 Marriage subsists as a sort of ontological reality linking two particular people; a single person could not be “divided” between multiple marriages. Marriage, for Catholics, is a flesh-and-blood sacrament, an enduring sign and symbol of God’s love. Jesus’s demands for marriage—and the limitations on remarriage—are quite difficult. He is entirely unequivocal. In Luke, we find him urging, “Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits

2 | Divorce, Remarriage, and Catholicism

from her husband commits adultery.”4 Of course, Jesus often speaks in this uncompromising way on a lot of topics, even when it seems there must be exceptions. Perhaps that is all he is doing here. But, at least in this case, this view is hard to maintain, for Jesus emphasizes that this particular teaching does not admit of exceptions. Moses’ exceptions, after all, were only permitted because of man’s “hardness of heart.”5 In light of the new law of the Gospel, under which the bearing of our crosses is made possible through God’s grace, there are no exceptions. Moreover, his disciples sometimes explicitly doubt that Jesus could really mean what he says, saying “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.” Given the chance to qualify his command, though, Jesus agrees that it is difficult but not for “those to whom it is given,” for those called to marriage—which is not everyone. “He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”6 That this rule cannot be bent is confirmed by Luke 16, where Jesus’ insistence on the indissolubility of marriage immediately follows his rebuke of the Pharisees’ evasive and lawyerly legalism: “[I]t is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one dot of the law to become void.”7 Now, if “divorcing” and “remarrying” amount to adultery, that is because divorcing and remarrying is actually and literally impossible, because the first marriage still exists. The clunky locution, “divorced and civilly remarried,” highlights the specificity of the situation to which the teaching under examination applies. First, we are referring to those who have married validly. But we are not merely referring to those who have divorced but to those who have also remarried in civil law (since they could not have remarried in the Church); the divorced, as such, face no special impediment to receiving the Eucharist. Thus one can only “divorce” and “remarry” in a re-

stricted sense. A valid marriage is permanent. Since marriages are not just natural and (in some cases) sacramental but also legally recognized, it is possible that the legal contract be dissolved and another contract, with another person, created. The Church holds, though, that—assuming one was validly married in the first place—these legal divorces and remarriages are mere equivocal “divorces” and “remarriages”; they may be legally and socially recognized as such, but one remains married to one’s original spouse. In the foregoing I emphasized the requirement of the marriage being valid. Some, possibly many, marriages do not meet this requirement. This is possible because certain conditions are requisite for marriage to have taken place; an actor and actress who utter “I do” on the stage have not thereby contracted a marriage, for they lack (among other things) the proper intentions. Thus not everything that looks like a marriage is a marriage, though, as Ross Douthat puts it, “while every individual marital union may be as different as every human being, for every given case there is still a definite, either/or answer to the question, ‘is this marriage real?’”8 For this reason, the Catholic Church distinguishes between divorce and annulment. The term “annulment” sometimes begets the misleading impression that, in an annulment, the Church authoritatively makes-null a marriage, which sounds pretty much exactly like what happens in civil divorce, which is a dissolution of a contract. An annulment, though, is a declaration of nullity. A tribunal examines the circumstances of what has been taken to be a marriage and attempts to determine whether there was ever a valid marriage; if not, then the tribunal declares that the “marriage” (which never actually existed) is null.9 Sin and the Eucharist Divorce and remarriage are one part of the equation. The other ingredients in the debate are sin,

conscience, and the Sacrament of the Eucharist. 1 John distinguishes between two levels of gravity that sin might have, “All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not deadly.”10 The Catholic Church has called that sin which is deadly mortal and that which is not venial. The former is deadly in the sense that it “destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him,” while the latter “allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.”11 Because mortal sin is deadly, the Church has taken its reconciliation to require special means—Christ’s forgiveness in the sacrament of Confession. When is sin mortal, though? Mortal sin pertains to grave matter, the matter or object of an action being, basically, what the agent does or what the agent aims at—the kind of act it is. The Church takes the Ten Commandments to delimit what counts as grave matter, but as Jesus teaches, the content of the Ten Commandments is broader than it at first seems.12 An action’s being grave matter is insufficient to qualify it as a mortal sin. A sin cannot be mortal if it is in some sense “out of the sinner’s control,” so mortal sin requires “full knowledge” of the action’s sinfulness and the “complete consent” of the acting person.13 Deficiencies in these respects are mitigating factors; to the extent that one honestly does not know of an act’s sinfulness or does not perform the act of one’s own volition, one is not responsible for the act, although “[f ]eigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.”14 That is, not every instance of ignorance excuses, for there are some things of which one ought to be aware; “no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man.”15 In practice, one cannot infer a person’s subjective guilt from the fact that they have done something which constitutes grave matter.

Swarthmore Peripateo | 3

The charity which one must bring to the interpretation of others actions is the source of the command to “judge not.” Pope Francis emphasizes this fact in Amoris Laetitia, as I will note later. Since Jesus teaches that divorce and remarriage is adultery, divorce and remarriage is grave matter. What implications should this have for the reception of the Eucharist? Without venturing too far into the sacramental theology of the Eucharist, we can appreciate the reverence with which the Church regards it by looking to St. Paul in 1 Corinthians. After repeating Our Lord’s words from the Last Supper, St. Paul writes: Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.16 The mystery presented by this passage is that it is possible to profane the body and blood of the Lord by eating the bread and drinking of the cup unworthily. Profanation is an additional sin on top of one’s unworthiness. Thus the Code of Canon Law prohibits receiving the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin.17 Catholics recognize a grave duty to avoid scandal,18 and accordingly Canon Law directs, “Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.”19 In most situations, a priest should not and cannot prevent someone from receiving the Eucharist. For instance, a priest who suspects that someone missed Mass the week prior cannot turn the communicant away. The circumstances for a denial are always atypical. In the case under our examination, the requirement of permanence in marriage is well known among Catholics; while a priest cannot usually assume that someone who has done something grave (like missing Mass) did so both knowingly and willingly, the same cannot be said for someone who divorces, remarries, and remains in the resulting union. There is scandal associated with giving communion to someone in such a situation, owing to the public nature of marriage. The Pastoral Difficulty The Church’s longstanding practice is to deny the divorced and remarried from receiving communion, but some prominent members of the Church have suggested that the divorced and remarried could be admitted to the sacrament. The motivation for such a change is important to consider. It is usually urged that the change would merely

4 | Divorce, Remarriage, and Catholicism

be to the Church’s “pastoral practice,” rather than a change in the Church’s doctrine. This is important because the Catholic Church perennially emphasizes tradition and continuity. Moreover, if the proximate doctrine were to be rejected, then logic requires that so would at least one of the teachings that support it. But these are among the most important of the Church’s teachings—Christ’s unequivocal witness on divorce, the Church’s theology of the Eucharist, etc. There is also something odd about the proposed wedge between doctrine and practice itself. Can pastoral practice—the way a pastor, who takes the role of Christ the Shepherd to his flock—really diverge from doctrine in such a radical way, in the name of God’s mercy? I do not think that this change—pastoral or doctrinal—is wise. Pastoral practice aims at the flock’s— and, indeed, each sheep’s—spiritual good. Cultivating this is the task of the Catholic pastor. The aim for each individual, even those who find themselves in the tragic situation of the divorced and remarried, is integration into the Church’s full sacramental life. To the extent that the proposed change fails to do this—because it does not address the problem—it is not even genuinely pastoral. It is worth appreciating the difficulty here, though. Above I observed an asymmetry between divorce and remarriage, on the one hand, and other mortal sins, on the other. Anyone with an ounce of sympathy will notice the unfairness of the practice. Sure, Canon 916 says that no one should receive the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin, but everyone sins, and who follows that rule anyway? Why should the divorced and civilly remarried be uniquely barred? Especially today, lots of marriages end in divorce, and often one of the spouses is guiltless, having honestly attempted to salvage the marriage without cooperation from the other. This problem is especially pressing given the social aspect of the Eucharist. To receive is a public act that seems to mark one’s membership in the Catholic Church. The divorced and remarried abstain alone, thereby contributing stigma. Proponents of the proposal are moved by these real difficulties; it is better, they say, to meet people where they are rather than to demand the strictest adherence to difficult precepts, or else they might leave the Church altogether. 20 After looking at Amoris Laetitia I will suggest a way to lessen this burden, but to Pope Francis’s exhortation, I now turn. Amoris Laetitia: What It Is and What It Says The reaction Amoris Laetitia has been uneven; some have called it “groundbreaking” and “revolutionary”—a “game changer.”21 This is somewhat unusual, given that the vast majority of Amoris Laetitia is a pastoral reflection on longstanding and,

often, unpopular Catholic teachings about marriage and sexuality.22 The reason for such claims is mostly the thought that Amoris Laetitia licenses the admission of divorced and remarried Catholics to Holy Communion, which would be a small change but has, for some, acquired a distorted significance. The significance is not only felt on the left, as critical reactions from the conservative front show; one author goes so far as to accuse Pope Francis of “cowardice” and “hubris.”23 It’s important to distance ourselves from sweeping claims and look at what the document is and what it says. Different kinds of papal documents serve different purposes. Amoris Laetitia is a pastoral rather than doctrinal or magisterial document. In its Introduction, Pope Francis states his modest intentions in writing it: I thought it appropriate to prepare a post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation to gather the contributions of the two recent Synods on the family, while adding other considerations as an aid to reflection, dialogue and pastoral practice, and as a help and encouragement to families in their daily commitments and challenges.24 The Church’s magisterium, its supreme teaching authority, is not intervening: “I would make it clear that not all discussions of doctrinal, moral or pastoral issues need to be settled by interventions of the magisterium.”25 Raymond Cardinal Burke points to this and adds that it “is written as a reflection of the Holy Father on the work of the last two sessions of the Synod of Bishops.”26 The cardinal explicitly points to AL 308, where Francis “propos[es] what he personally believes is the will of Christ for His Church, but he does not intend to impose his point of view, nor to condemn those who insist on what he calls ‘a more rigorous pastoral care.’” The document is a self-avowed personal reflection, drawing primarily from the synodal final documents, which are also of a non-magisterial character. “In other words, a postsynodal apostolic exhortation, by its very nature, does not propose new doctrine and discipline but applies the perennial doctrine and discipline to the situation of the world at the time.” What, then, does Amoris Laetitia do? I suggest that its effect on communion for the divorced and remarried lies in the middle of two extremes. One extreme is constituted by the proposals for change in practice, according to which, more or less, all divorced and remarried Catholics could (perhaps after a suitable amount of time, a “penitential period”) receive communion.27 The other would insist that every divorced and civilly remarried Catholic who has not gotten an annulment may not receive the Eucharist. Chapter 8, the controversial chapter, gives an ar-

gument for the possibility of such a middle road. Above, in discussing mortal sin, I mentioned mitigating factors that can reduce culpability even where grave matter is concerned. Pope Francis gestures toward the Church’s “solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations.” He writes that “it can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace.”28 “Recognizing the influence of such concrete factors, we can add that individual conscience needs to be better incorporated into the Church’s praxis in certain situations which do not objectively embody our understanding of marriage.”29 The suggestion, then, is that because grave matter can occur without mortal sin, it is possible—and presumably actual in some cases— that divorced and civilly remarried couples are not in states of grave sin. This is correct and follows from the Church’s understanding of culpability. If divorced and civilly remarried—non-annulled, non-abstinent—couples are not in states of mortal sin, then they can receive without incurring further mortal sin. As discussed above, there might still be scandal, however, for which reason the Church has traditionally not permitted them to receive. Pope Francis seems to anticipate and discount this suggestion: “To show understanding in the face of exceptional situations never implies dimming the light of the fuller ideal, or proposing less than what Jesus offers to the human being.”30 He does not explicitly connect this point with the concern of scandal though, and the unqualified claim is perhaps overstated. There are two places where Pope Francis seems to suggest the permissibility of a change in practice. In one spot he observes that the application of a general rule can vary in particular cases; in a footnote, he adds, “This is also the case with regard to sacramental discipline, since discernment can recognize that in a particular situation no grave fault exists.”31 In the now-infamous “Footnote 351,” Pope Francis considers the “help” that can be given to those in “an objective situation of sin”—that is, grave matter. The footnote reads: In certain cases, this [help] can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, “I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather than encounter with the Lord’s mercy”. I would also point out that the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.32 But what is the import of these footnotes for practice? A couple points are in order. First, it would be strange for Pope Francis to provide the answer everyone was waiting for only in footnotes. Further,

Swarthmore Peripateo | 5

even if these footnotes are to be read as permitting the reception of the communion by the divorced and remarried, they provide little guidance as to deciding when that is appropriate. When Pope Francis refers to “the help of the sacraments,” he cannot mean any of the sacraments at any time; for matrimony, for instance, would be both impossible and sacrilegious in the cases we are imagining. The availability here, then, must continue to be guided by the Church’s constant teaching and practice; or else, by what? Pope Francis has not suggested otherwise. It seems that these footnotes do provisionally allow such reception, when honest discernment has revealed that the divorced and civilly remarried Catholic is not in a state of mortal sin. This is a weighty decision, though, given possibilities of self-deception and hardness of heart. Any application of Amoris Laetitia to concrete situations, then, requires a great deal of caution. Problems with Amoris Laetitia Of course, Amoris Laetitia has not been read carefully and, in many places, will not be applied carefully. Pope Francis recommends specific judgments regarding individuals’ subjective culpability; a pastor who enacts a general policy of giving communion to everyone who asks, then, is violating both the letter and the spirit of Amoris Laetitia. Its ripeness for misapplication and abuse is surely its greatest fault. This is an instance of a general difficulty: How should the Church communicate in the twenty-first century? The middle way of Amoris Laetitia is subtle; it has been misunderstood and willfully distorted, and while that is inevitable, greater clarity was possible. Amoris Laetitia is just not obvious enough about its implications and intentions, and to the extent that a document is misinterpreted, what it really recommends will not be taken up. Now, one of the other problems with Amoris Laetitia, to which many commentators have drawn attention, is its tone. Consider Footnote 351, quoted above. The Eucharist is not a prize for the perfect, but who has suggested that it was? The Eucharist is the center of the Church’s sacramental life, where Catholics join Christ in his eternal sacrifice and receive the graces needed to be part of the Body of Christ. Since all Catholics are sinners, the Eucharist is medicine and nourishment; “As bodily nourishment restores lost strength, so the Eucharist strengthens our charity, which tends to be weakened in daily life; and this living charity wipes away venial sins.” Further, “By the same charity that it enkindles in us, the Eucharist preserves us from future mortal sins.” However, “The Eucharist is not ordered to the forgiveness of mortal sins—that is proper to the sacrament of Reconciliation.” 33 It could not be otherwise if, as St. Paul

6 | Divorce, Remarriage, and Catholicism

says, those who receive unworthily drink judgment upon themselves. So the Eucharist is not a “prize for the perfect”—of course—but it remains the case that “[t]he Eucharist is properly the sacrament of those who are in full communion with the Church.” 34 It is similarly odd to suggest, if only to discredit, any likeness between the confessional and “a torture chamber.” Amoris Laetitia treats marriage as an “ideal,” giving the impression that “irregularity” is inevitable, and the law’s demands are too difficult for humans to meet. But ordinary people can meet the demands of the law with God’s help, and when they fail, God continues to offer his mercy and forgiveness. At times Amoris Laetitia seems to embody a lack of confidence in living in accordance with the law, especially by comparison with the nuanced phenomenology articulated in, say, Pope Saint John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor—the Splendor of Truth. Those who live “by the flesh” experience God’s law as a burden, and indeed as a denial or at least a restriction of their own freedom. On the other hand, those who are impelled by love and “walk by the Spirit” (Gal 5:16), and who desire to serve others, find in God’s Law the fundamental and necessary way in which to practice love as something freely chosen and freely lived out. Indeed, they feel an interior urge—a genuine “necessity” and no longer a form of coercion—not to stop at the minimum demands of the Law, but to live them in their “fullness.” This is a still uncertain and fragile journey as long as we are on earth, but it is one made possible by grace, which enables us to possess the full freedom of the children of God (cf. Rom 8:21) and thus to live our moral life in a way worthy of our sublime vocation as “sons in the Son.”35 It does not seem to me that anyone could read John Paul’s encyclical and Francis’ exhortation alongside each other and not notice a marked difference. If a literally non-revolutionary document excites liberal commentators as much as Amoris Laetitia does, then the reason is certainly the document’s reluctant and “self-effacing” tone.36 Of course, one might think that Veritatis Splendor-while a beautiful reflection on the Gospel’s call- is not very pastorally helpful. But it seems to me that any pastoral approach must begin with a love of truth and a confidence in what God’s grace makes possible. How could it be otherwise? As an instance of this, consider Amoris Laetitia 301 on mitigating circumstances, which I quoted above. Pope Francis follows this by writing, “More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding ‘its inherent values.’”37 The suggestion is that the “full knowledge” criterion

for mortal sin may not be met in a particular case not because someone lacks knowledge of what Jesus and the Church teach about adultery, but rather because he knows this and yet disbelieves that the teaching is legitimate. The rule itself and the Church’s teaching authority lack evident plausibility for him. Suggestions like this are often made alongside the observation that Western culture is estranged from a traditional understanding of marriage, so it is perhaps possible to know and reject Church teaching on adultery without being fully, mortally culpable. And I think this is possible. But there are great risks, too, for as I had cause to note above, “[f ]eigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin,” and “no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man.” Assessing the culpability of someone who rejects and violates one of the Ten Commandments is difficult, for how responsible is he for the rejection? On the one hand, people are often poorly catechized today; on the other, the world has always posed temptations and challenges to believers, but as the examples of the saints show, the world cannot defeat God’s grace. Amoris Laetitia almost never uses the word “adultery,” except when quoting scripture, and it uses throughout the term “‘irregular’ situations,” with scare quotes around “irregular,” as though this term were somehow non-literal. This usage of language is surely an attempt to be pastoral—it is offensive to call situations “irregular” or, worse, sinful. It is true that emphasis on the law can be uncomfortable; it is not therefore obvious that the decent thing to do would be to purge such words from our vocabulary. Pope Francis writes that “a pastor cannot feel that it is enough simply to apply moral laws to those living in ‘irregular’ situations, as if they were stones to throw at people’s lives”38—which is, of course, true. But then the question, again, is, who has done that? Was Jesus metaphorically throwing stones whenever he spoke unequivocally about adultery? The document, at a few points, suggests that those in irregular situations should not be treated and made to feel as though they were excommunicated.39 This is entirely true; those who are divorced and remarried are not excommunicated, and it would be inappropriate to treat those who are not excommunicated as though they were. The pope does not flag the fact that not being excommunicated and being able to receive communion are not the same thing, although this is a common misconception. He also does not limit the scope of his claim; he discourages “language or conduct that might lead them to feel discriminated against,” but does that conduct

include the barring them from receiving the Eucharist? On the one hand, Pope Francis unequivocally has not put in place a general program for giving the Eucharist to every divorced and remarried Catholic. But since excommunication bars one from receiving, according to Canon Law, is everyone who should not receive being treated “as though they are excommunicated”? Are children and candidates for entrance to the Church, who also ought not to receive, therefore, treated as though they are excommunicated? Similarly, Father James Martin, S.J., reads the call for integration and “participation” in church life as a license for reception of communion, adding parenthetically, “The reception of Communion is not spelled out here, but that is a traditional aspect of ‘participation’ in church life.”40 This is incorrect, though. Receiving the Eucharist at a given Mass is not a condition for being a member of the Church. The way that any person can participate in the Church depends on that person; the sacrament of Matrimony is a way of participating, for example, that is unavailable to people such as priests. Such statements risk giving the impression that one is excluded from the Church if one does not receive. Those who do not receive can still make a “spiritual communion” during Mass, asking for God’s grace and forgiveness to eventually be worthy of the Body and Blood of the Lord. Many Catholics are unfamiliar with this practice, and the Church would benefit from its revitalization. Unfortunately, Amoris Laetitia does not mention it. The Church only requires that Catholics receive communion once a year, during the Easter season.41 Less than a century ago, in fact, it was common for one-third of Mass attendees to abstain from receiving the Eucharist; it was not an abnormal thing, and those who did not receive did not feel like outcasts. There is not much reason to believe that the average Catholic today is less sinful than yesterday. We are, perhaps, less conscious of our sins, but certainly we are less familiar with the disciplines and norms regarding the reception of Holy Communion. All Catholics should revisit these and, as St. Paul urges, examine themselves before they receive. r Endnotes 1 Mark 10:9. All biblical quotes from Revised Standard Version, Second Catholic Edition. 2 Matthew 22:23-33. 3 Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5; Mark 10:7-8; 1 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 5:31. 4 Luke 16:18. See also Mark 10:10-12. 5 Matthew 19:8. 6 Matthew 19:10-12.

Swarthmore Peripateo | 7

7 Luke 16:16-18. It must be mentioned that Matthew 5:31-32 and 19:9 include apparent exceptions. Therein Jesus says that “whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery.” “Unchastity” here translates “porneia,” but its sense is a topic of substantial dispute. See Pruss, Alexander, One Body: An Essay in Christian Sexual Ethics (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2013), 218-228; Paul Mankowski, S.J., “Dominical Teaching on Divorce and Remarriage: The Biblical Data,” in Remaining in the Truth of Christ: Marriage and Communion in the Catholic Church, ed. Robert Dodaro, O.S.A. (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2014), 57-62. Clearly, however one takes it, it could not make divorce and remarriage widely permissible—whenever marriages are difficult or unexpectedly fail, for instance—or else Jesus’s insistence on this marriage’s indissolubility becomes unintelligible. To use it to generate general exceptions would be to put the letter of the law before its spirit; recognition of this spirit of the law is, I presume, why the Catholic tradition has almost unequivocally stood by the indissolubility of marriage. 8 “The Defense of Catholic Marriage,” New York Times, April 11, 2016 (http://douthat. blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/11/the-defense-of-catholic-marriage/). 9 Burke, Raymond Leo Cardinal, “The Canonical Nullity of the Marriage Process as the Search for the Truth,” in Remaining in the Truth of Christ, 210-241. 10 1 John 5:16-17. 11 Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1855. 12 Matthew 5:21-32. The Church recognizes a broadened scope even for those commandments Jesus does not explicitly discuss, taking “Honor your father and your mother” to apply to all duties that subsist in families, for instance. 13 CCC, 1859. 14 Ibid. 15 CCC, 1860. 16 1 Corinthians 11:27-29. 17 CIC 916 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P39.HTM). Pope Francis discusses 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 in Amoris Laetitia 185-186. He says that this

passage is “usually interpreted outside of its context or in a generic sense, with the risk of overlooking its immediate and direct meaning, which is markedly social,” and reminds readers of the context of St. Paul’s admonition: the exclusion of poor members of the Christian community from the agape meal and the celebration of the Eucharist. He writes, “When those who receive it turn a blind eye to the poor and suffering, or consent to various forms of division, contempt and inequality, the Eucharist is received unworthily.” One might worry that my reading of Paul, which is the Church’s reading (cf. CCC 1385), is too “generic” and ignores the social context of the original admonition. This is not the case. The divisions in the Corinthian community were the occasion of Paul’s teaching, but there is a more general lesson, with implications for sacramental theology, to be gleaned. Why is it a profanation to receive when there are unjust divisions in one’s community? Because one should not receive when one is unworthy in general. As Saint Thomas Aquinas writes in his commentary on these verses, “[T] his sacrament does not befit sinners who are not yet alive by grace; although baptism befits them. Furthermore, the Eucharist is the sacrament of love and ecclesial unity, as Augustine says on John. Since, therefore, the [mortal] sinner lacks charity and is deservedly separated from the unity of the Church, if he approaches this sacrament, he commits a falsehood, since he is signifying that he has charity, but does not.” (http:// dhspriory.org/thomas/SS1Cor.htm#117) 18 Matthew 18:6. 19 CIC 915. 20 It is important to keep concrete examples before us to appreciate the stakes, importance, and difficulties of this debate. See Father Dwight Longenecker’s reflection on Amoris Laetitia, including fictional but representative examples of hard cases he has encountered, “The Pope’s Exhortation – A Parish Priest’s Perspective,” Standing on My Head (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/ standingonmyhead/2016/04/the-popesexhortation-a-parish-priests-perspective. html). 21 Martin, James, “Top Ten Takeaways

8 | Divorce, Remarriage, and Catholicism

from ‘Amoris Laetitia,’” America Magazine, April 8, 2016 (http://americamagazine. org/issue/top-ten-takeaways-amoris-laetitia); Yardley, Jim and Laurie Goodstein, “Francis’ Message Calls on Church to be Inclusive,” New York Times, April 8, 2016 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/09/ world/europe/pope-francis-amoris-laetitia.html); Pashman, Manya Branchear and Angie Leventis Lourgos, “Cupich: Pope’s document on sex, marriage, family life a ‘game changer’,” Chicago Tribune, April 9, 2016 (http://www.chicagotribune.com/ news/local/breaking/ct-pope-catholicsdivorce-met-20160408-story.html). 22 For example, AL 42, 55, 56, 251, 282, 283, 292, 297 (https://w2.vatican.va/content/ dam/francesco/pdf/apost_exhortations/ documents/papa-francesco_esortazioneap_20160319_amoris-laetitia_en.pdf ). 23 Dougherty, Michael Brendan, “The cowardice and hubris of Pope Francis,” The Week, April 11, 2016 (http://theweek.com/ articles/617324/cowardice-hubris-popefrancis). 24 AL 4. 25 AL 3. 26 Burke, Raymond Leo, “‘Amoris Laetitia’ and the Constant Teaching and Practice of the Church,” National Catholic Register, April 11, 2016 (http://www.ncregister. com/daily-news/amoris-laetitia-and-theconstant-teaching-and-practice-of-thechurch/). 27 Cf. AL 300, 304. 28 AL 301; cf. AL 302. I generally suppress in-text citations in the exhortation. 29 AL 303. 30 AL 307. 31 AL 300. 32 AL 305. 33 CCC 1394. 34 CCC 1395. 35 VS 18. 36 Douthat, Ross, “The Defense of Catholic Marriage.” 37AL 301. 38 AL 305 39 AL 243, 246, 299. 40 Martin, James, “Top Ten Takeaways from ‘Amoris Laetitia’”. 41 CCC 2042.

Prayer, Relationship, and Depending on God by Juhyae Kim

“Would anybody like to open

us in prayer?” I sit still, staring at the floor with my fingers fidgeting. “Okay, that’s alright. I can just pray for us.” And the tension dissipates. I’ve found myself in this situation all too often. From Sunday school to devotion times at my Christian high school to Bible studies with friends, I was never comfortable with praying out loud and dreaded being asked to pray at a Christian gathering. For the longest time, I told myself that it was just a matter of personal choice, that some people felt more inclined to pray out loud than others, and that I shouldn’t be pressured to pray because doing it out of obligation would make my prayers forced and insincere. I still believe this can be true. I also understand that praying aloud can feel a bit odd, unnatural, or difficult for people,

especially if they haven’t done it much before. However, when I started to be honest with myself about why I didn’t like praying in front of others, I realized that there was something deeper and less trivial than just lacking the “experience” of praying out loud. The issue was that I didn’t quite understand why I prayed. Without a clear understanding of this, my prayers never felt genuine, and I struggled to find things to say when praying in front of a group of people. From previous sermons and Bible lessons I’d heard, I knew the point of prayer wasn’t to recite a giant wish-list off to God. I also knew it wasn’t to rant about my life like I would in a diary, which no one but myself would read. In fact, I knew prayer was to have a conversation with God. But I didn’t understand why that conversation was so mandatory - especially when it felt so one-sided and it seemed as if God knew

and willed how everything in my life would happen anyway. In an attempt to reconcile these tensions I felt about prayer, I went through some instances in Scripture where people pray and God responds. In going through these passages, I’ve realized two things about prayer that have compelled me to prioritize it and hold fast to it in the last few months. The first realization is that prayer is how we develop a relationship with God, who is a personal being. The second is that prayer is an acknowledgment of utter dependence on God, who is also a sovereign being. These points are not mutually exclusive, as each one flows from and into the other. The first point is repeatedly expressed in Scripture, and Psalm 145:18-19 is one clear example: “The LORD is near to all who call upon him, To all who call upon him in truth. He will fulfill the desire of

Swarthmore Peripateo | 9

those who fear him; he will also hear their ily of Lot, Abraham’s nephew- one of the cry and will save them.”1 Since God is near reasons for Abraham’s request in the first to, listens to, and responds to those who place.3 When Paul pleads three times with pray to him, he is a personal being. How God asking him to remove the thorn in his would I have a personal relationship with flesh that is tormenting him, the answer is him if I did not talk to him? In any mean- “no” since he is not healed. But because he ingful relationship, there must be a con- has asked for it and is denied it, Paul recstant, voluntary sharing between two indi- ognizes that God’s will is for this weakness viduals of the things going on in their lives. to prevent him from becoming conceited.4 Now, this “personal relationship” reason To be clear, Paul’s response is not an excuse never clicked with me was because it often for us to brush off the suffering we experifelt like God, not I, was the uncommuni- ence in this world as “God’s will.” In fact, cative individual described above. Wasn’t there are many cases in which I have never understood why the communication supposed to go in God’s answer is not always God allowed me or the people around both directions? “yes,” but the people are me to undergo difThe majority of the confident that whatever ficulties despite our time, I thought he didn’t hear me. Or happens is what God is do- earnest prayers. I’ve seen a family in our if he did hear, he ing with them in mind. church congregadidn’t care. Since I tion fall apart, a reldid not know how ative’s unbearable to receive or recfinancial situation ognize a response from God, I’d pray nonchalantly, let life negatively affect their children, and friends happen, then say, “Oh, I guess that’s what lose their loved ones at young ages; this is God had planned to happen regardless of the reality of the world we live in. It can what I asked him.” It was hard to see God seem that if God were a good, loving God, as a personal being who responded to and he would not let these things happen to us. This is a topic that many Christians and cared for me. But understanding the second point theologians have written on for centuries about how prayer is a form of acknowledg- and are still are grappling with today, and I ing utter dependence on God made the will not attempt to discuss the full scope of first point come to life for me. Scripture this issue in this piece. The point I want to has plenty of examples of people express- make is that suffering is a tangible, painful ing dependency on God through prayer result of sin and should not be dismissed as and understanding that God is responsive good simply because God does not immeand caring. God’s answer is not always diately take it away from us. At the same “yes,” but the people are confident that time, cutting off all communication with whatever happens is what God is doing God just because he doesn’t respond to prayers in the way we expect him to is not with them in mind. In 1 Samuel, Hannah prays in anguish the most rational reaction either. I am still for a son, recognizing that no matter what willing to trust that God works things out she does, her womb cannot bear children. even if I don’t understand what he is doing God then answers with a “yes” by blessing at that moment. And the greatest model her with a son, Samuel. Thus, in her prayer for me to follow in these circumstances of praise, she acknowledges the Lord’s care is that of Christ in the Garden of Gethand his power to give her a son.2 In Genesis, semane. Jesus, too, wanted God to remove when Abraham asks God to spare Sodom pain in his life when he asked to let the cup and Gomorrah if ten righteous people are of suffering and death pass from him. But found in the city, God agrees. Even though he did not respond with bitter accusations the outcome of the situation is not exactly or anger when God said no. Christ’s attiwhat Abraham’s expects, he can be sure tude is evidenced by his prayer, “Yet not my that God remembers and has Abraham’s will, but yours be done.”5 He acknowledges interests in mind since he spared the fam- God’s authority in his life, and his example

10 | Prayer, Relationship, and Depending on God

is what I strive to follow. word. I may be asking for something that Returning to the instances of people is outright unbiblical or in some way conpraying in Scripture, while there is much trary to what the Bible deems good and to learn from each of these stories, they righteous, so knowing what Scripture says all have a common thread: a person faces and reading examples of prayers can guide a situation or task that they cannot hanme significantly. Additionally, the Bible dle on their own or even with a group not only has examples, but also contains of people, they depend on God for help, truths that can speak directly to the quesand based on what happens, God’s will tions I may have. It’s clear that communiand provision become clear to them. Had cating with God is done by praying and none of them prayed about these things, by reading Scripture; it’s like inhaling and they would not have acknowledged God’s exhaling. You can’t survive by just doing work. Without prayer, I lose sight of how one; both need to be done harmoniously much I depend on God, and I become in order for one to know God. blind to what he The act of prayis doing. Put anWithout prayer, I lose sight ing is an act of acother way, the less that of how much I depend on knowledging I pray, the less I God is in supreme God, and I become blind to control and that am aware of how God is working in we as humans rely what he is doing. my life, and the less on his power. If I personal he seems. don’t pray to him, This still leaves the question of why I’m treating him like he’s not the Lord of God seems unresponsive when I pray. But this universe. Dependence on God is what after going through these passages, I realgets me to see that he provides for me and ized that the issue was not that God is unthat I have a relationship with him. responsive to me, but rather that I’m not Prayer is, of course, much more than willing to see his response. just the two short points I addressed here. In a situation where I am seeking an But these points have helped me reorient answer or solution to an issue in my life, my attitude towards it. I’ve recognized I will most likely pray. But if my prayer prayer’s necessity and have developed a is a demand for God to do something a desire to understand God more through certain way for me, and then if I get upset it. I’m still far from where I want to be that he didn’t do what I asked, I’m the one regarding my prayer life, but identifying preventing a two-way conversation. I’m these points has been an important turnthe one refusing to see or listen to what ing point for me. If I fail to see that I pray God is saying to me through the circumto maintain a relationship of Creator and stances he has allowed in my life. Perhaps creation, Lord and servant, Savior and these selfish demands of mine should not saved, Father and child with God—all of even be considered sincere prayers. Genuwhich are characterized by dependence— ine prayers modeled by faithful men and my prayers become fruitless. Thus, I’ll women in the Bible are acknowledgments continue reminding myself that prayer that they have no power over a situaisn’t a one-sided conversation where I tion and that they depend completely on tell God things and he does whatever he God’s decision for them. Once this atwants. God does in fact respond to me, evtitude is cultivated, it becomes less, “Oh, erything I possess is provided by him, and God doesn’t listen to me and does whatpraying helps me sustain this relationship ever he wants,” and more “I asked God with him. r about it, and this is what happened. He’s already provided for me in so many ways, Endnotes so there must be a reason he made this 1. Psalm 145:18-19 NIV happen.” 2. 1 Samuel 1-2 One concrete way I can see if my heart 3. Genesis 18-19 is in the right place as I pray is by check4. 2 Corinthians 12: 7-8 NIV ing my prayers against what is in God’s 5. Luke 22:42 NIV

Swarthmore Peripateo | 11

It has been said that Palestinians have a sad-

ness about them that stretches back generations, passing forward with each new restriction or demolition. This past Winter Break, I was blessed to have the opportunity to travel to Israel/Palestine, in conjunction with a Peace and Conflict Studies class taken on the conflict. The trip lasted ten days, a whirlwind of tours and meetings, punctuated occasionally by moments of rest and reflection. But going to the West Bank, I did not expect that a degree of this sadness could transfer through stories and scenes. The purpose of the trip was to turn classroom education into experiential learning, putting names and places to events about which we had only read, all with a focus on Human Rights issues. We met with over a dozen activists, representing both Palestinian and Israeli organizations. We took tours of Hebron, the center of recent violence; Jerusalem, a disputed city with a long history; Sderot, an Israeli town long-subject to Hamas rockets from Gaza. We swam in the Dead Sea, climbed a Roman aqueduct on the Mediterranean coast, and got an inside look at the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock. But weaved into all of these events, we also visited what are considered the most holy Christian sites in the world. Bethlehem, where a church commemorates the birthplace of Christ. Jerusalem, where a series of churches pay homage to the crucifixion and resurrection of our Lord. A mountain-top monastery in Jericho, where He is thought to have been tempted by the Devil, and overcome him. There were many such sites, all holding immense significance for a Christian like myself. Each new site, often with its significance only casually mentioned to the group, was striking, finally

12 | The Stones Cry Out

allowing me to put an image to places which before could only exist in imagination. It was powerful to visit the River Jordan, the Mount of Temptation, the Tomb of the Patriarchs. I could never deny the feelings which welled up within me, knowing that I was walking in the footsteps of Christ, of the Apostles, of so many Christians who have come before me. In so many ways, these sites felt like my heritage, my legacy inherited not by blood but by faith. At each of these sites, even if we only paused at some for a brief moment, I took a moment to pray, thanking God for the opportunity to see these sites for myself. I thanked Him over and over that I could put images to these places, could make Bible stories tangible and real. And I thanked Him that I could step foot in these sites, because I was all too aware that those who lived so close would never see these churches, never see these monasteries, never see these holy halls. And as I thanked God for this privilege, I also grappled with sorrow. Because while I prayed at these sites and wandered the halls of chapels and monasteries, I could not ignore the bullet holes, the barriers. In the Tomb of the Patriarchs, now a mosque which is thought to hold the remains of Abraham, Jacob, and other Old Testament figures, bullet holes remain in the apse which directs towards Mecca. In 1994, a Zionist on the far-right opened fire during Ramadan prayers and killed 29, injuring over 100 more. The mosque, a flashpoint of violence in Hebron, is surrounded by Israeli soldiers and checkpoints, with access restricted to even local residents. In the Church of the Nativity, thought to be the birthplace of Jesus, bullet holes can be seen on its high walls. In 2002, the Israeli

The Stones Cry Out by Emily Audet

army invaded Bethlehem and besieged the church for forty days when it became known that 200 monks and dozens of Palestinians, some thought to be militants, were seeking refuge there. During the siege in adjoining Manger Square, so often the sight of Christmas celebrations, a balloon hovered above the church allowing Israeli Defense Force (IDF) snipers to kill eight within its walls. Yet it is more likely than not that if you were to go to any of these places intent on seeing the Holy Sites, you would never see the bullet holes, never hear the testimony of those who watched sanctity defiled, never even be made aware that there was conflict here at all. Certainly, Israeli besiegement and checkpoints and restrictions are not the narrative told to those who travel to Israel/Palestine on pilgrimage, intent on seeing the ‘Holy Land’ and ‘Walking in the Footsteps of Jesus.’ So often, these Holy Land tours are led by those whose objective seems to be to get tourists into the site, then out, as quickly as possible. But surely tourists must see something amiss? Must feel the unease in the air at so many of the monasteries and churches they visit? I cannot be sure, but I hope the truth filters into their experience somehow. It certainly suffocated mine. Our tour guide in Bethlehem, a Palestinian Christian himself, told me “People come here on pilgrimage. It is a manipulation.” He said this shortly after we left the Church of the Nativity, after showing us the bullet holes in the facade and explaining the siege. I had approached him to ask about the other foreigners we’d seen in the church, and in many of the other churches we’d visited. I had listened to some other group’s tour guide as we both stood in an open square in the church, around a statue of Saint Jerome.

We had been told to turn and see bullet holes, where a mentally disabled bell-ringer had been shot on the roof. If they had turned their heads, they would have seen them. If they had turned their heads, they would have known too. But they never did. We moved on, and so did they. Many churches in America offer such pilgrimages, exciting trips to get baptized in the Jordan and explore the path of Christ, purportedly untouched by the tragedy that actually afflicts such holy ground. But, to me, such ignorance in the name of Christianity seems to be the epitome of hypocrisy. Christ calls upon His followers to defend the oppressed and needy, and to show His love in all corners of the world. 1 John 3:17 says “If anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him?” (ESV)To travel to Israel/Palestine in search of God and ignore the very people God calls us to come beside is contrary to the message of Christ. To remain willfully blind to this suffering, and indeed any suffering that is clear before you, is to harden one’s heart against the message of love and care that Jesus preached. Christian churches send people on these pilgrimages, presenting a Holy Land that is divorced from reality and ignoring the suffering that is present in it. But this isn’t an Israel/Palestine problem; it is the problem of a church which is willing to prioritize comfort over reality, a spiritual high over the needs of others. If the Christians in that tour group had turned their heads, they would have seen the bullet holes. If they had turned their heads, opened their mouths, explored outside the comfortable bubble of religious tourism, they would have known too. But they never did. r

Photo by Emily Audet

Swarthmore Peripateo | 13

ARTWORK BY REBECCA ZHOU

Grace Like Rain Hallelujah All my stains are washed away

Twas grace that taught my heart to fear and grace my fears relieved

Soar

He is risen from the dead and I will rise when He calls my name

No more sorrow no more pain I will rise on eagles’ wings Before my God fall on my knees and rise. Though my heart and flesh may fail there’s an anchor for my soul I can say “It is well...”

14 | Grace Like Rain/Soar

Could we with ink the ocean fill, And were the skies of parchment made, Were every stalk on earth a quill, And every man a scribe by trade; To write the love of God above Would drain the ocean dry. Nor could the scroll contain the whole, Though stretched from sky to sky.

ONE DAY IN BOND HALL The Hand The left one

by Nathan Scalise

(Because the right one is busy enough) Grabs hold of me And I Cannot sit Down Fast Enough. My socks & shoes Are suddenly several feet

away

From my feet That rest bare On what must be Holy Ground My thoughts recede Like the tide And miles of

in t

Waits exposed to

my e

hometown

receive.

Swarthmore Peripateo |15

Lending and Borrowing: A Christian Perspective

by Roy Walker

Are financial institutions evil? The media

sure makes them seem that way. I’ve asked myself this before but now that I am about to begin a career in finance, I realized that this is the time to find an answer to that question. As I began to explore the issue, I started realizing that there is a seeming paradox between the way our world works and the laws laid out in the Bible. The paradox is essentially that the Bible tells us lending is lawful only if repayment is not expected but in today’s society that is simply not possible. Additionally, if lending, especially lending with the expectation of both repayment of interest and principal, is wrong, then would it be wrong to go work for a company that facilitates that exchange? Or to that end, is it wrong to put money in a savings account knowing full well that the bank will then take that money, lend it out to somebody else, and charge them interest on it? This paper will delve further into what the Bible has to say about lending and borrowing, how its interpretation has changed over time, and how it can work in today’s society. Before attempting to address the paradox mentioned above, it is important to understand how lending and borrowing works in our economy. In our economy, we are able to efficiently match borrowers with lenders and potential investors with appropriate investment opportunities by using large institutions to facilitate the flow of capital. Large banks take money from lenders that have put money in their savings accounts hoping to make a moderate rate of interest, then they lend that money out to bor-

16 | Lending and Borrowing: A Christian Perspective

rowers that need money to make large purchases such as that of a house or a car. This is important for a number of reasons. One of these is that it allows for personal consumption smoothing. For instance, if you want to buy a house, you can take out a mortgage and make small payments monthly instead of waiting until you have enough saved in the bank to purchase the house all at once. Additionally, by pooling a lot of savers together and lending to a large number of borrowers, banks are able to spread risk out through the economy so that the failure of one borrower does not significantly impact any one lender. These are two of a plethora of benefits and should give an idea of the importance of borrowing and lending in our current financial system. Let’s begin with the practice of borrowing. According to the Bible, it was not considered wrong to borrow money. However it did condemn certain types of borrowing. Borrowing is touched on in the book of Psalms, which is an Old Testament collection of hymns and poetry that was written by a few different authors. In this book it is written, “The wicked borrow and do not repay, but the righteous give generously.”1 This tells us that it is not inherently wrong to borrow, but it is wrong to borrow and not be able to repay your debt. Along the same lines, the book of Proverbs also makes reference to borrowing. For some background, the book of Proverbs is a book of lessons that was passed down from the wisest elders. Most of these were from King Solomon, a king renowned for his wisdom. The book lays out a master/slave relationship that a person takes on when

they borrow in Chapter 22: “The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is slave to the lender.”2 The first half of this verse outlines the idea that the rich are typically the ones who provide work for the poor and, in doing so, they are the boss that rules over them. The second half tells us a condition of the rich and the poor. When you owe somebody money, you are subject to their wishes until you pay them. Every cent that you make is used to pay them rather than to cover your own needs until they are paid back in full. In modern society, if you do not meet your interest payments and pay back what you borrow, you can have your assets seized and you will, at the minimum, have a very low credit rating. This means that you will have to borrow at extremely high interest rates if anybody is willing to lend to you at all. In that sense, the borrower becomes the lender’s servant where the fruit of all of their work is given to the lender. Additionally, the lender historically would put conditions on the loan telling the borrower what they can and cannot do, which emphasizes this master/servant relationship. These passages seem to outline the biblical perspective on taking on debt. Though it may not be a sin to borrow money from another person, it clearly facilitates a relationship where one person serves the other. Additionally, borrowing with an inability to pay back the lender is considered sinful. Though this may seem to be a bit extreme, it’s clear how this philosophy on borrowing could benefit our society if it were civic law instead of just a moral code. One benefit is that it would eliminate those

that borrow and cannot make payments. Because of this, lenders would not be worried about a borrower’s ability to pay and would not need to charge as high of interest rates, which would greatly benefit lower-income earners that are forced to borrow at high interest rates. I mention lower interest rates because rates are a function of the risk taken on by the lender. A large amount of the lender’s risk is the borrower’s ability to pay them back, so if there is certainty in this aspect then the lender’s risk will decrease and the interest rate that they charge the borrower will decrease as well. Let’s now turn to the practice of lending. The Bible makes many references to the practice of lending money. In the Old Testament, most of the laws from God came through Moses and were laid out as a moral code for God’s chosen people to live by. They emphasize the idea of helping the worst off members of society. The issue was addressed directly in the book of Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy was written by Moses in approximately 1407 B.C. to remind the Israelites what God expects of them. In the middle of the book, there is a list of principles and instructions for living a Godly life as God’s chosen nation. In Chapter 23, it is stated, “Do not charge a fellow Israelite interest, whether on money or food or anything else that may earn interest. You may charge a foreigner interest, not a fellow Israelite.”3 This is interesting because it was stating that it was legal under Old Testament scripture to charge foreigners interest but not to charge a fellow Jew interest. In the latter case it was expected

Swarthmore Peripateo | 17

that they would lend without expectations of repayment. To clarify, this does not mean that they could not be repaid when lending to a fellow Jew, just that if that person was unable to repay their debts, those debts were to be forgiven. Lending was addressed again in Exodus where, under Mosaic Law, it was stated “If you lend money to one of my people among you who is needy, do not be like a moneylender; charge him no interest.”4 This law was likely implemented because interest-bearing lending would only make the poor worse off than they already were. This passage makes Though it may not be a clear once again that, according to Old Testament, living a godly sin to borrow money from the life meant not charging interest another person, it clearly to those who could not pay their facilitates a relationship debts. However, lending was not discouraged amongst wealthier where one person serves Jews, nor was it discouraged bethe other. tween nations. In fact, at one point business was set up such that Jews lent to Christians and vice versa so as to facilitate commerce without breaking the Old Testament scripture. Also, interestingly enough, some passages do not condemn lending as a practice and in some examples, they even seem to extol it. For instance, Psalm 112 says “Good will come to those who are generous and lend freely, who conduct their affairs with justice.” The laws laid out by Moses are meant to create a moral code for God’s chosen people. Part of this means helping, not harming, the worst off members of society. The passages on lending seem to emphasize that principle. The picture then gets slightly muddled as we move from the Old Testament to the New Testament. The reason is that the Old Testament states that a Jew can lend at interest to non-Jews but the New Testament says that we must treat everybody as though they are our brother and, in doing so, forgive the debts of all who cannot repay. In one of Jesus’ sermons, he proclaims the following: “And if you lend to those whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great and you will be

18 | Lending and Borrowing: A Christian Perspective

children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked.”5 As mentioned earlier, this sends a slightly different message than the Old Testament view on lending. Whereas the Old Testament made it clear that lending, especially lending at interest, was forbidden among the poor and among fellow Jews, the New Testament states that lending to anybody with the expectation of repayment is discouraged. However, this passage is in the middle of Jesus’ sermon about loving your enemy and giving freely to those who need it. In context, the emphasis on forgiveness and love seems to be more in line with Moses’ teaching of loving one’s neighbor, even if that neighbor is a sinner or an enemy. Additionally, the book of Matthew adds the following verse: “Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.”6 Neither of these passages condemns lending. They actually encourage lending to all who need to borrow. They teach us to not discriminate in our lending and to be forgiving of others. Also, they do not say that it is wrong to be repaid; they simply state that if the borrower is unable to repay their debts, forgive those debts. Christianity has attempted to reconcile the Old and New Testament views on lending throughout history. To understand where Christianity has stood on the issue, it is interesting to look at the Church’s position over time. To do this, we must look into the history of the word usury. Usury is used instead of the word interest in the King James Version of the Bible. The meaning of this word has changed over the years though. A long time ago, the word was simply defined to mean interest, based on the Latin word usura. However, the interpretation of the word today is defined as the practice of charging excessive rates of interest on a loan. The Catholic Church has long struggled with the question of whether it is ever moral for someone who loaned you money to charge you a fee. Many philosophers, including St. Thomas Aquinas, have addressed the issue and have noted that it is unjust to exact interest but acknowledge that there are some biblical passages that condone it. Because of the passage from Deuteronomy that seems to condone lending to those of different faiths, Jews began

lending to Christians and vice versa so that borrowing and lending could occur for business practices without breaking the law. As time went by, interest rates began to rise to excessive levels (at times they reached up to 80%!) until the Church decided to step in and decide what rates of interest were morally acceptable. Gradually, the definition of usury came to be known as the practice of charging excessive interest rates. This definition seems to bring together the biblical perspective of borrowing and lending. If lending is allowed as long as interest rates are not exorbitant, then lenders will only lend to those that have a reasonable chance of repaying their debts. There is also the requirement that those who borrow must have the ability to repay their debts. The reason for this is the risk/return tradeoff that was mentioned before. If a borrower has a low ability to pay the bank back, the bank will need to be compensated for that risk through a higher interest rate. If they are not allowed to charge high interest rates, then higher-risk borrowers will have no opportunity to get a loan. Though this perspective seems to make sense, there also seems to be a few problems when trying to implement it into a system that facilitates capital flow smoothly. Using the modern definition of usury, it is wrong to charge excessively high rates of interest. One problem with this is that we do not define what a “high rate of interest” is. Additionally, though society can seemingly function under this definition of interest, there is a second problem that has not been identified. The problem lies in the financial theory about valuing a debt obligation. When a bank makes a loan, it relies on several identifiers to assess an interest rate. These identifiers are used as an attempt to understand the borrower’s ability and willingness to pay the loan back. Some identifiers that they use are credit score, loan amount, loan duration, and income. If a borrower has a low credit score because he has not been able to pay bills in the past, then he will have to pay higher interest rates going forward. This makes sense financially if you think about the risk/return tradeoff. If a bank makes a loan that has a lower chance of being paid back, then they take on a greater amount of risk in making the loan. In order to encourage them to do

so, they must be compensated for taking on that risk. This is known as a risk premium and is essentially a higher interest rate for the borrower. This means that the lower a person’s income and the lower their credit score, the higher their interest rate. While this makes complete sense from a financial point of view, it stands in direct opposition to what the Bible teaches us. This problem is important to highlight but, unfortunately, is not one that I can solve. The Bible teaches us that the poorer somebody is, the lower the interest rates you should charge them and the more willing you should be to forgive their debts. This seems to be the most important solution but one that is not necessarily viable in today’s society. In conclusion, the conversation on borrowing and lending is not cut and dry. Clearly, there are passages that seem to both encourage and discourage lending. Because of that, philosophers have debated on both sides of the issue and the Church has been changing its position over time. Today, the practice of charging interest for money lent is considered wrong when the interest rates are excessive. Additionally, if someone cannot repay their debts, the Bible says that it is right to forgive them of their debts. This perspective appears to fit into our modern day The lower a person’s income financial system. Borrowing and and the lower their credit lending play an important role in smoothing individuals’ consump- score, the higher their intertion, facilitating the development est rate. While this makes of infrastructure and other major complete sense from a finanprojects, and providing the Federal Government extra sources cial point of view, it stands in of capital for domestic spending. direct opposition to what the A problem may arise if banks charge interest rates that are too Bible teaches us. high to compensate themselves for additional risk. But as long as the interest rates are not excessively high and we help those that are less fortunate and unable to pay, today’s system can function in accordance with scripture. r Endnotes 1. Psalms 37:21 (NIV) 2. Proverbs 22:7 3. Deuteronomy 23:19-20 4. Exodus 22:25 5. Luke 6:34-35 6. Matthew 5:42

Swarthmore Peripateo | 19

Questions of a Christian Athlete by Ryan Meuth

20 | Questions of a Christian Athlete

What follows is intended to be neither di-

dactic nor informative—I do not wish to suggest that this is a common story, or that others should live their own lives in the same manner in which I have come to. Instead, this quite simply is my own story, treating two of the most important influences in my life, faith and sports. I am a collegiate soccer player and a Christian, taking great pride in both, defining my very identity in both. And while they work in concert together now, enriching my experience in each, this has not always been the case. At some times, soccer has detracted from my ability to find God and follow his word, and at others, my faith has been an obstacle to my journey as an athlete. This, then, is an abridged story of the influence sports and faith have had on each other in my own life, and how I have grown in each department. On the face of things, sports and faith seem to coexist well in popular culture. Images of athletes such as David “Big Papi” Ortiz rounding the bases after yet another home run, platinum cross bouncing against his broad chest, pointing to the sky as he touches home plate, have long lingered in my mind. Even within my own sport, every game features a player who will cross himself as he runs onto the field or scores the ever-elusive goal that wins the game. This created the expectation that I, at age ten, would also be able to unite my faith with my burgeoning soccer career, as I became more and more committed to the sport. I vividly remember the first time I brought God into the realm of sports, feeling ever so serious as I bowed my head before walking onto the field for the first game of the 2006 spring soccer season. My own NEFC Eagles were playing our vaunted rivals, the Boston Bolts, who had beaten us handily in the fall season championship game. I recall thinking as I changed from my warm-up shirt into the game jersey, “Maybe I should pray that we finally beat them,” before dropping to my knees and reciting the Lord’s Prayer, asking God for his help to do what seemed beyond the grasp of my own team (Was this my finest moment as a Christian? No. But I was young and desperate.) I can’t remember how the game actually went, and while I tried to search the archives for the league, they have been long erased. Nonetheless, I was convinced that I was onto something. For the next three years of my life I thrived, my life coming to revolve around games on Saturday and Mass on Sunday. Like every young adult, I couldn’t wait for the weekend. Instead of it meaning the end of the school week, though, I reveled in Friday nights as they meant the coming of the two things which took pre-eminence in my life and of which I was the most proud. I improved each year as a player and found myself closer and closer to God, firmly confident in the Lord, thanking him every time my head bowed for the life I had and my gifts as a soccer player (I might have overestimated my own abilities, but who amongst us hasn’t at such an age?) This state of coexistence rapidly fell apart at the age of 14, when my team joined a second league, the Regional League, which had games on Sundays ranging from Maine to Pennsylvania. This meant that Sunday Mass no longer was a possibility for me, as I

was at a game, often out of state. While seemingly an easy obstacle simply because of a change in circumstances—fewer time restricto overcome with Mass being offered on other days and Church tions allowed for other aspects of my life, including my faith, to being simply one (albeit an important) piece of being a Christian, flourish once more. This was challenged once more as I entered my faith fell apart. I had relied on my routine for so long, that the college. My life became consumed by both school and soccer once crack in it nearly crashed the entire ship of my faith. Entering high more, as the pressures from Swarthmore and the time commitment school with practice four nights a week and two days of games, my of being a collegiate athlete weighed heavy upon me. Further, uplife became consumed by soccer and schoolwork, my Christianity rooted from my church and all that was familiar, I lacked the influbeing left as the odd one out. While I felt guilt for neglecting it, ences in my life that would keep me honest and dedicated to my it only remained as guilt, never gaining the power to cause me faith. However, having fallen down once before, I was dedicated to transform my life. This is one of my own great regrets--that not to making the same mistake twice. Despite my own commitI could take for granted the life and blessings God had gifted to ment though, I might have slipped up without the mentorship of me. And while I was not actively rejecting him as my Lord and an older teammate of mine named Michael Superdock. A devout Savior, neither was I actively rejoicing in his presence and seeking Christian and a phenomenal athlete, he became the example that to glorify him through all that I did. I became obsessed with the I strived to emulate. idea of being a college soccer player, putting all of my time and The single most important cue that I took from him was his energy into anything I believed ability to glorify God through everywould help me to reach that goal, thing in his life and to see every new I became obsessed with the idea of neglecting all that I felt wouldn’t. game and practice as an opportunity Faith, to me, became an empty being a college soccer player, putting all to do so. While I had been taught undertaking, superfluous to all of my time and energy into anything I such lessons before, I had never seen else I was trying to accomplish. them truly embodied or practiced to believed would help me to reach that the level that Mike did. He gave his And in the midst of my spiritual breakdown, the gestures I had goal, neglecting all that I felt wouldn’t. absolute all in every facet of life (in once performed within sports Faith, to me, became an empty under- both academics and sports), not wantthat showed my faith came to ing to pass up a single opportunity to feel hollow. Gradually, they too taking, superfluous to all else I was try- show his appreciation for the gifts that slipped away, leaving no tie behe had been given by God. Trying ing to accomplish. tween the two aspects of life. I to follow his lead in this represented lived with this separation for 3 a major shift in my own life. During years, from about 14-17, and while I felt happy at the time, looking high school, it was the moments that I was at my best that I most back I see just how empty my life had become. gave thanks to God. At other moments I was more apt to just let I wish I had some watershed moment in which I reconciled my faith bubble under the surface. While I was thankful of all the myself with God and found faith once more (it would make a con- gifts and opportunities I had been given in my own life, I did not siderably better story). Instead, the real story was one of balance. necessarily give my fullest effort to them at all times. What I have The spring of my Senior year in high school I switched teams, go- learned over my college career is that every single moment is an ing form one that was incredibly demanding to one with friends opportunity in itself, and that by giving my all in every moment, that had only Saturday games and two days of practice. Gradually I can glorify God and thank Him for every minute, second, and I rediscovered my faith, going to Mass on Sundays as a first step. experience that I am blessed enough to live out. By doing so, I have Slowly, I dedicated myself to studying the Bible again, as well as become a better athlete, student, and person, enabling my faith to the ritual of meaningful prayer as opposed to the token efforts I grow through every self-improvement I make. had made the few years before. As my faith was strengthened once While summarizing an entire story into a single line is a thankmore, the connection with soccer returned. I discovered that soc- less and impossible task, I would like to conclude by stressing the cer came to mean even more to me when I stopped playing solely importance of balance. I was so consumed and focused on one for myself and my own goals. Instead, using it as a vehicle through single aspect of life that I lost sight of the beauty of life as a whole. which I could seek to glorify God and display His grace within The gifts of God are simply too diverse and numerous to become me by being the best player and version of myself that I could be all consumed with any single pursuit—instead, life is at its sweetest on the field. While I no longer rely on such rituals as crossing when its various facets come together and build upon each other, myself before games and pointing to the Heavens, I have instead leaving life better than the sum of its individual parts. For me, transformed soccer into an extension of my faith itself, tying them this meant bringing faith and sports together to make each more together more fully than any simple act could. wonderful—as for yourself, that is a journey you may yet have the I will readily admit that part of the evolution of my faith came chance to take. r

Swarthmore Peripateo | 21

Strangely My perfectionist tendencies come into direct collision with the

voice that says I am justified not by my own works but through Jesus on the cross. This is what my story of Christianity revolves around. There is a constant reweaving of voices that strive and strive to create my internal self to be better, and there is the small, gentle voice of Jesus, of acceptance and love. As a child, I remember having immense frustrations over not being able to perform some task (like solve a math problem, or do a fly-away on the bars in gymnastics, or fold toilet paper as a child), my insides would scream at these inabilities, knotting myself like a rag, so I would often cry from frustration. This bleeds into my interactions with my family and my friends and into the present day. It bleeds into Christianity and the cultural voice of God that can expect perfection or create strange religious standards that harshly run over what I believe is God’s still, small voice. When it comes to loving people, sometimes “I can’t” stands in between me and another, like an awkward black shadow or wall. I sometimes fear that I am like a cactus, and the only way for people to interact with me without being hurt is for me to stay far away from them internally, physically or otherwise. This fear would lead me to isolate and ostracize myself, keeping my true self far away, in order to avoid hurting those around me by doing or saying the wrong thing. It would be better, I told myself, if I just locked myself up, away from the people around me, and didn’t do anything at all; putting myself inside a closet, up on a shelf, like an old forgotten doll and left to gather dust as the world swirled around it. “Not good enough,” I told myself, “not yet.” Not good enough to be seen, to let myself out. When the smallest light cracked into through the closet doors and my When it comes to loving people, soul peaked out, words would scream the door shut. Each time I came into sometimes “I can’t” stands in be- the light, voices reminded me “not good enough” and these words echoed me. It hurt. The words and the voices forced me to ignore myself and tween me and another, like an through my true feelings, to manipulate myself into being better and doing things awkward black shadow or wall. I didn’t want to do in order to become what seemed like good enough for the people around me. The voices say that whatever is truly me is not good enough, and to create a better self, I forsake what are my heart’s truest desires. So I listened, and wondered when I might be let out, or be able to see daylight again…there was a lot of work to be done before I would be able to see light. ~ Experiences of grace slowly let me out - receiving a palpable sense of love allowed me out of the darkness to touch light if only for a moment. Prayer and worship was a safe haven where my truest self peeked out and was seen, if only for a second, by God. God met me, there - when I allowed him to see my truest desires and self. God was beginning a slow process of letting me out, in spite of myself. These experiences helped to give validation to my feelings, allowing me to listen and do what I knew I needed; God loved me and saw me. So I began searching deeper into Christianity. But the voices came back. They changed their faces and took on the mask of religiosity,

22 | Strangely Justified

Justified by Rebecca Griest

pointing to the standards, rules and expectations of God, ultimately turning God into another object demanding perfection. They made me believe that if I could not justify myself according to certain standards and religious rules and follow God’s will to perfection, I would lose this relationship. I was scared to make the wrong choice, lest I lose what I had found. “Make yourself better through these actions,” they screeched through their masks, pretending and taking God’s small voice and changing it. The voices of perfectionism became a tight string that wrapped itself around my experiences of grace, slowly But the voices came back. They suffocating my understanding of God’s goodness, and twisting my relationship with God. The voices of fear of inadequacy hijacked God’s voice and my percep- changed their faces and took on tion of Him. I no longer believed that He was good, or that I could be my true the mask of religiosity, pointing to self with Him. standards, rules and expectations But God’s voice and God’s Words circles back and blows this up: “We know that [we] are justified through faith in Jesus Christ not by works of the law. So of God. we, too, have put our faith in Christ that we may be justified not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one is justified” (Galatians 2:16). I am strangely justified. This loosened the grip of perfectionism and God again, finds me, the real me, when I am huddled in the same darkness again. Distanced from other people and from scripture, it took a lot for me to come back out to hear His words. God reached inside of me, through incidental interactions- a plane ride home sitting next to a pastor (who was writing a book called “Good God” - Thank you God <3); a GPS leading to a small town to find books connecting me to a strong glimmer of what God’s love looks like. God reminds me what his voice looks like. Slowly, God is teaching me I am being cared for, that he is providing for me, that I can give myself to him, and that he responds, through prayer and through his consistent love. I can give my truest desires to the world and to Him instead of keeping them locked away. There is grace in realizing that I am only a piece of a much larger whole. There is peace in understanding my piece is only a piece, that I am not the savior of the world, but I can accept a salvation that is not contingent on my perfection. I can accept grace. I can lay down my sword and stop battling imperfections, knowing that while I cannot save myself, God has saved me. This frees me to give my true self to God, to receive from Him. It frees me to accept the way God created me, and the parts of me that I had rejected, as something he can use to weave love and goodness into the world. When I fall, it’s okay. Allowing God to reach me is letting God see me, reaching from where I am - instead of creating my own peace and perfection inside myself. God helps me. God is with me. I definitely still struggle daily with the voices that try to force me back into the darkness. There is trust and freedom in reaching towards God out of love rather than out of the fear of imperfection. There is trust in giving my truest self to God and knowing that he is working through all of my surroundings. Moment by moment, through prayer, worship, nature and other windows, God shines a light into the darkness and reminds me of what I know, but have forgotten- that God is good and has been all along. r

Swarthmore Peripateo | 23

Tainted Water: A Christian Perspective on Cursing by Michael Broughton II

One Friday evening, a month or two

into my first semester at Swarthmore, I overheard an upperclassman discussing campus life with a couple of my freshmen peers. All three were Christians, and the upperclassman was expressing his recommendation that the freshmen never enroll in a course he particularly disliked. He cited several reasons for this, including the likability of the professor, the amount of homework involved, and the relatively useless nature of the material. “In general,” he summarized casually, “the class is a load of advanced bullsh**.” The use of the expletive took me aback. My upbringing has involved many Christ-oriented experiences including homeschooling and private Christian education, and as such, cursing has been out of the question for as long as I can remember. I’ve been discouraged from using “foul language” in any situation, and taught that such vocabulary is never suitable for Christians to use or even expose themselves to. I was rarely shown any specific scriptural references that concretely backed this notion, but I nonetheless became conditioned to respond adversely to curse words I heard uttered on TV, in songs, or by people I knew. I would often make broad assumptions about someone based upon their usage of curse words, up to and including what I figured must have been their level of religious involvement. Christians don’t curse, my train of thought would surmise, so this foul-mouthed person could not possibly be all that strong in his faith. Of course, other biblical lessons about not judging others would occur to me,

24 | Tainted Water: A Christian Perspective on Cursing

but verbal choices seemed to be too significant to ignore. I had never met a person who was both a solid Christian and a user of curse words; it seemed to me that being one automatically disqualified you from being the other. All of this was called into question on that Friday last semester. In other contexts, I had gotten to know the upperclassman as a solid, God-fearing individual. He’d been heavily involved with Christian life on campus, was knowledgeable about a host of theological topics, and came across as genuinely sincere with regard to living for God. Given my view that a Christian was necessarily someone who never cursed, therefore, hearing how he described that class stumped me. My judgemental, decidedly unChristian attitude prevented me from being able to reconcile what I thought to be a universal Christian characteristic with the behavior of someone, who I knew to be Christian, but did not fit within my presumed guidelines. This occurrence forced me to not only step back and reevaluate my habit of judging others’ faith, but also to question whether my views in general about the way in which Christians should use their words were grounded in Scripture. Similar situations have occurred on campus since then, and they have collectively inspired me to seek what the Bible has to say on the topic. I’d like to draw directly from Scripture to create a clearer picture of what God considers upright verbal behavior. Of course, a proper discussion about the use of curse words should begin with identifying some of

their definitional properties. In my experience, curse words are relatively arbitrary terms that have been assigned to describe (typically sexual or excremental) bodily occurrences, insult people, express negative emotions, or promote any combination of these three. Curse words’ meanings, as well as their statuses as being curses at all, change with time - typically over the span of decades. Despite this, there seems to be a fixed collection of several words that retain their taboo meanings, and are the ones most often used in conversations where cursing is deemed acceptable. How, then, does the Christian treat this vocabulary? Does he express himself with curse words the way others might, or is he called to act somehow differently? I don’t think I’ll be able to provide universally acceptable answers to these questions, but perhaps drawing from the Bible and relating what I find to my own life can serve as inspiration for the efforts of other Christians. Thankfully, Scripture is not silent on the issue of speech. In fact, the Bible teaches that there is immense power in the human tongue. The words we use can work for good, building others up with encouragement and strengthening healthy relationships. It is often the case, however, that what we say works for evil instead of good. This is a primary focus of James 3, which likens the tongue to a small fire: although the tongue is among the body’s smallest parts, it facilitates speech that can ignite a firestorm of negativity. James doesn’t sugarcoat his words when he says that, in doing this, the tongue becomes a “world of iniq-

uity.”¹ Much of the negativity in our speech comes in the form of putting others down, be it by insulting them, likening them to some bodily occurrence, or expressing the unfavorable emotions they evoke. These are, of course, behaviors most easily facilitated by the use of curse words. Such behaviors are cause for concern - they inherently break Jesus’ commandment that we love our neighbors as ourselves.² When we profane others with our speech, as we do with curse words, we are in no regard treating them with the loving, respectful attitude that Jesus instructs us to use. James makes this clear when he points out the dangerous contradiction present in Christians that use degrading language. These Christians bless God, but with the same mouth curse those that were made in his image.³ Just as a fountain cannot expel both pure and tainted water, James expresses that such duality among followers of God “ought not to be so.”⁴ I would agree. But what about instances in which curse words are used for reasons other than degrading others? Is the Christian free to use curse words to, say, vent frustration or tell jokes? I admit that this idea appeals to me, but I must again defer to the answers provided by Scripture. In Scripture, Christians are called to be fundamentally different from others in the world with regard to their thoughts and actions. Paul expresses this clearly in Romans 12:2. “Do not be conformed to this world,” he writes, “but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect

Swarthmore Peripateo | 25

will of God.” When we allow ourselves to be filled vey an appropriate emotional response to a specific with God’s love and guided by His presence, our in- topic, such as to express disdain for an ungodly intentions become aligned with the goal of glorifying justice, for instance, it becomes somewhat harder to God in all we think and do. Many of our thoughts condemn on biblical grounds. Much of what I’ve found thus far, I will fully atand behavioral inclinations, purely by nature of being influenced by God, will be different from those of test, has been colored by my upbringing. I grew up in a family culture where most people around us. This is not to My judgemental, decidedly un-Chris- curse words were forbidden not only for their say that Christians are “better” or any tian attitude prevented me from be- own sake, but because closer to perfection ing able to reconcile what I thought to of the fact that they can than non-Christians; be a universal Christian characteristic foster an attitude of disrespect. My experience nothing could be further from the truth. with the behavior of someone who I has influenced my perNor are we called to knew to be Christian but did not fit ception of the relationship between Christian live in isolation and within my presumed guidelines. life and verbal behavior, eschew every aspect such that the reverence of human life not mentioned in the Bible. There are many contexts in and respect I have for God is reflected in the way I which Christians conform to the ways of culture for talk to others, who were created in his image. This investigation has led me to believe that, as practical purposes. Nonetheless, the implications of verbal behavior seem to be an area that God sees as it would seem, Christians are generally discouraged particularly worthy of attention. Ephesians 4:29 in- from the practice of cursing. In many cases, the use structs Christians to “let no corrupt word proceed of a curse word can be linked to either degrading out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary others or conforming to suit the world, both of edification, that it might impart grace to the hearers.” which directly contradict two biblical mandates: that Even when curse words aren’t used to intentionally we love our neighbors as ourselves, and that we abdegrade, they don’t typically edify or impart grace. stain from letting the world’s influence undermine By nature of their definitions, most curse words seem the transforming power of God. In the process of to have an inherent bias toward slander or negativity, exploring this topic, however, I’ve come to a couple which is what James explicitly condemns. I’m per- of personal realizations as well. Firstly, I must keep sonally inclined to err on the side of caution when in mind that many of the conclusions I’ve drawn are informed by past experience and cultural upbringing. dealing with cases of “harmless” cursing. One interesting commonality between the James My convictions in this area are personal, and do not and Ephesians passages is the emphasis on words’ necessarily apply to every Christian. Secondly, I am external impact on the hearers, rather than on the reminded of the implications of my experience with intentions of the speaker. What I take from this is the upperclassman. Although I believe that I have a that, even when curse words are spoken in a seem- scriptural basis on which to oppose cursing, it’s not ingly inconsequential way from the perspective of my place to become self-righteous and judgemental the person talking, they have at least the potential when I hear others curse, regardless of whether or to negatively influence those listening. My Christian not they profess faith. Instead, it’s my job to live out walk requires that, whenever possible, my speech be all aspects of God’s word, including the ones regardused to encourage others and ultimately lead them ing verbal behavior. I hope and pray that, by serving to Christ. Any words that actively contradict this as a loving example through my behavior, and engagmission - that come with built-in tendencies toward ing in conversations (like the one I hope this essay degradation and the like - are not words I want to will inspire), others will ultimately be drawn to the God who shapes the way I speak. r throw around carelessly. Even considering all this, I must acknowledge the fact that curse words as they are used today can serve Endnotes as audible markers of emphasis; they have the ability 1. James 3:6 NKJV to clearly and unambiguously apply a specific emo- 2. Matthew 22:39 NKJV tion to an utterance in a non-vulgar fashion. When 3. James 3:9 NKJV the power of the human tongue is harnessed to con- 4. James 3:10 NKJV

26 | Tainted Water: A Christian Perspective on Cursing

PERIPATEO CONTRIBUTORS AND STAFF Greg Brown ’16 Greg wins some and he loses some. He never frets, and always says it ain’t so.

Roy Walker ’16 Roy is an Economics major and Statistics minor. He believes that matter can be created and destroyed. That’s why he studies econ.

Nathan Scalise ’16 Nathan is from Brewster, Massachusetts and is currently searching for the 25th hour of the day. When not running or eating, he basically lives in the Lang Music Building.

Heitor Santos ’17 Heitor wasn’t supposed to be here, but we needed an even number of contributors for design purposes.

Emily Audet ’18 Emily is an Arabic and History double major from Massachusetts. Michael is wrong - double fudge brownie is clearly superior.

Michael Broughton II ’19 Michael is a freshman from Detroit, Michigan, with academic interests in Neuroscience and Arabic. He firmly believes that chocolate chip ice cream is the best ice cream.

Irene Tang ’19 Irene is a freshman from sunny California, who is working on becoming a sophomore. She enjoys wandering around Sharples, and dreams about living in the great outdoors. Irene likes to wear capes.

28 | Peripateo Staff and Contributors

Rebecca Griest ’16 Rebecca is a senior Biology major. She enjoys painting (especially with her fingers) and spending time in nature. She hopes to graduate this coming semester and keep living after college!

Ryan Meuth ’17 Ryan is a junior studying English and Political Science. He plays varsity soccer as well as being an RA on campus. In his free time, he takes care of his hamster, Simba.

Nicholas Zahorodny ’16 Nick is an Eastern Rite Catholic and a double - major in Philosophy and Economics. He loves to set his alarm clock to ring at 5:30 AM on Saturday mornings.

Nate Lamb ’17 Nate is a minimalist.

Matthew Olivencia-Jacques ’18 Matthew is an Engineering and Political Science double major. His blank stare is his most powerful weapon.

Rebecca Zhou ’19 But he said to me “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” 2 Corinthians 12:9 (NIV)

Juhyae Kim ’19 Juhyae is from St. Louis, MO, and is planning on majoring in Linguistics. She misses her dog and probably spends too much time watching puppy videos online.

Selah.

Pause. Breathe. Think of that.

May the path rise to meet you and surround you with good yet to be done. May your hands grasp onto love and establish peace. And when you are weary, may the Spirit overflow its banks and bathe your feet in grace. Selah

‫סֶלָה‬