LOGOS
A Journal for Christian Thought at Yale
Featuring:
The Feeling of Decision
Sherry Ann Morgenstern pg. 16
Prayer for a Normal God
Magda Andrews-Hoke pg. 41
Fighting for the First Amendment
Habib Olapade pg. 12
Chichester Psalms: Hearing the Music of Scripture
Raquel Sequeira pg. 26
Volume 8 • Issue I • Fall 2018
Mission
Named for the Greek term meaning “word,” “reason,” “principle,” and “logic,” the Logos seeks to stimulate discussion of a Christian worldview in a way that is relevant and engaging to the Yale community.
Acknowledgements
This issue of the Logos has been made possible in part by the generous contributions and continuing support of the Augustine Collective and Christian Union.
Involvement
Interested in writing an article for the Logos or responding to one of the articles in this issue? Contact kayla.bartsch@ yale.edu
Disclaimer
The Logos is published by Yale College students; neither Yale University nor its affiliates are responsible for the material herein.
Letter from the Editor Dear Reader, I am delighted you stumbled upon our little creation. What you hold in your hands is a collection of discussions, memoirs, and musings, united in their mutual pursuit of providing a fuller understanding of the faith. Unlike some of our past issues, this issue of the Logos does not provide a specific, cohesive theme – an intentional choice. We wanted to keep the path wide open for our writers to engage with the ideas that captivate their thoughts the most. In the pages to follow, you will find a philosophical analysis of our decision-making process, an ode to the saving grace of Missouri’s countryside, and a discussion of the necessity of moral justification in the lawmaking process. While the subject matter of the following articles may differ substantially, each composition seeks to shed a little more light on the Christian Life, whether by reflecting on lived experience or debating live questions. Ultimately, our hope is that you might discover a facet of the Christian faith previously unfamiliar to you, or, better yet, that you come away with new questions on your mind. In any case, we sincerely hope you enjoy this issue of the Logos! Peace & Joy,
Kayla Bartsch Editor-in-Chief
DISCOURSE 06 • Alvin Plantinga’s Problems with Materialism Max Graham
Our Staff:
09 • When It All Began: A Response to Young Earth Creationism Tommy Schacht 12 • Fighting for the First Amendment Habib Olapade
Kayla Bartsch Editor-in-Chief Vienna Scott Executive Director
16 • The Feeling of Decision Sherry Ann Morgenstern 19 • Politics & the Pulpit Vienna Scott
REFLECTIONS
Raquel Sequeira Associate Editor Sarah Geach Creative Director
Fishers by the Wayside • 23 Naasey Kanko Arthur Chichester Psalms: Hearing the Music of Scripture • 26 Raquel Sequeira True Pleasure • 30 Joseph Brownsberger
Bradley Yam Blog Manager
Writer’s Block and Worship • 34 Sharla Moody
Josh Purtell Treasurer
Fig Leaves in the Fall • 36 Pedro Enamorado
POETRY 39 • Psalms for Today Kayla Bartsch 40 • [Untitiled} Magda Andrews-Hoke 41 • Prayer for a normal god Magda Andrews-Hoke
Alvin Plantinga’s Problems with Materialism By Max Graham
T
ime Magazine once called Alvin Plantinga “America’s leading orthodox Protestant philosopher of God.”1 In 2017, when Plantinga won the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion, his writings were credited with having “made theism —the belief in a divine reality or god—a serious option within academic philosophy.”2 Perhaps more so than any other individual in the 20th century, Plantinga created space for religious perspectives in academia. When surveying his academic career, one lesson that quickly emerges is Plantinga’s prudence in picking his philosophical battles. Plantinga recognized at the outset of his career that some viewpoints were more antagonistic towards religious beliefs than others. In particular, Plantinga decided to concentrate his intellectual efforts on engaging philosophical materialism—a philosophical viewpoint that often discredits religious reasoning before a discussion even begins. Defining Materialism As its name suggests, materialism is the belief that the universe (and everything else) consists solely of matter.3 Things like emotions or states 6 ◆ λογοσ
of consciousness can be explained completely in terms of material processes, as in the chemical reactions that occur in the brain. For instance, saying that you are “in pain” would be another way of saying “C-fibers in your body are firing,” and “being conscious” is another way of saying “activity is occurring in the pyramidal cells of layer five of the cortex involving reverberatory circuits.” Consciousness, in this view, is in no way different from this material description of neural activity – consciousness just is this specific neural activity. Indeed, the very word “consciousness” simply becomes a shorthand for such processes. This could be extended to any piece of information that does not have matter as its subject. Suppose we believe that physics is the proper study of matter and its characteristics, and that other studies have other subjects. Biology studies something that we refer to as “life,” sociology studies “societies,” and aesthetics studies “beauty.” But physics studies matter. In the materialist framework, if physicists were to give us a complete explanation of matter and material interactions, then this would be a complete explanation of the
universe. No longer would we have to deal with questions of “life” or “societies” or “beauty.” We would have one category to collapse all other conversation. Whatever this ultimate, material-monist reality looks like is not a primary concern for the materialist. Perhaps life can be explained in terms of matter moving this way, or perhaps it can be explained in terms of matter moving that may, but this is the job of the physicist, not the philosopher. This reduction of all realms of thought (i.e. biology, sociology, aesthetics, philosophy) to physics is the ultimate end of materialism. Plantinga’s Response to Materialism To say that this view is unfriendly to religious belief in general, and Christian belief in particular, would be an understatement. Rather, philosophical materialism is completely antithetical to Christian belief, as Plantinga argues in his paper “Materialism and Christian Belief.” Scripture is full of references to a reality distinct from the material world. If we accept materialism, then a Christian scholar would have to reject Paul’s account given in 2 Corinthians of a man being lifted
up to the third heaven either “in the body or out of the body,” or Peter’s account of death as putting aside “the tent of this body,” or the copious references to God as Spirit.4 Following materialism would mean leaving behind a good deal of Christianity. Plantinga also points out problems with the materialist argument as articulated above. First and foremost, Plantinga finds materialism to be internally incoherent.5 In his view, matter could not (even in theory) have all of the properties that materialists rely on it to have. For instance, humans obviously have the capacity to believe things and to sense things. What would it mean for some piece of matter to have a belief? Or what would it mean for a collection of particles to feel or sense something? Materialists operate with these concepts— they have beliefs (e.g. about materialism) and they have feelings and sensations (e.g. looking at bits of matter in a microscope and recording the data). They rely on beliefs and sensations to do their work and arrive at their conclusions. But once they arrive at these conclusions—namely, the conclusion that all that exists is inert, conscious-less
“What would it mean for some piece of matter to have a belief?”
7 ◆ λογοσ
matter—they throw these concepts out. In other words, Plantinga accuses materialists of relying on non-material concepts to get to their conclusions, to then discredit the path they used to get there. For Plantinga, this is incoherent. Plantinga also addresses a further problem with materialism. What does the word “matter” even mean? How would a materialist answer this question? Any definition of “matter” would presuppose that matter is not the final explanation, or, in other words, that everything cannot be reduced to descriptions of matter because matter itself can be further reduced. The only way out of this infinite regression is to suppose that matter is basic, that it requires no explanation. But this primus nature of matter then seems pretty mysterious, perhaps even religious. In the end, Plantinga thinks that the materialist, just like the religious believer, begins with certain starting points that serve as axioms – whether the existence of irreducible matter or the existence of an unmoved mover, of God. When these alternate groundings are acknowledged, true discussion can begin, with both religious and non-religious perspectives addressing the core of disagreement rather than the periphery.
8 ◆ λογοσ
Max Graham graduated in 2018 with a B.A. in Philosophy & Physics. Citations 1. “Modernizing the Case for God.” Time, April 7, 1980. 2. “Philosopher Alvin Plantinga Awarded 2017 Templeton Prize at Chicago Ceremony.” Templeton Prize. September 24, 2017. http://www.templetonprize.org/previouswinners/plantinga.html. 3.It is not the belief that expensive clothes and possessions are the key to happiness; although, they are probably given a better claim to reality than any spiritual possession. 4. 2 Corinthians 12:1-4; 2 Peter 1:13-14 5. He has written numerous articles exposing and critiquing the presuppositions behind Philosophical Materialism. The most pertinent of these are “Against Materialism” and “Materialism and Christian Belief ”.
When It All Began: A Response to Young Earth Creationism By Tommy Schacht
O
n Oct 25th, The New York Times published an article titled “Bruno Latour, the Post-Truth Philosopher, Mounts a Defense of Science.”1 The article presented Dr. Latour’s general philosophical claim that “facts were ‘networked’; they stood or fell not on the strength of their inherent veracity but on the strength of the institutions and practices that produced them and made them intelligible. If this network broke down, the facts would go with them.”2 I immediately considered two things: the Bible and Young Earth Creationism. The Bible is arguably the most contentious collection of books ever written. Firstly, it is an indisputable fact that the Bible was written by humans. Even if one accepts, as I do, that the Bible is the product of divine inspiration through the intercession of the Holy Spirit, one must still accept that the Bible is a product of groups of people, writing at different times and producing different books. The actual canon of books that comprise the Catholic Bible was not understood to
be closed until at least the late 4th century. Many people in our day use this humanly constructed system of canon to dispute the idea that the Bible is “true.” However, this seems to be a spurious claim to make. For indeed, all epistemological claims are, as Dr. Latour points out, socially constructed. That is not to say that there is no objective truth; rather, there is simply no way to divorce the understanding of this truth from the methods used to arrive at it. Scientists use specific methods and networks to understand the world around them. Educational authority, networks of research labs and universities, and even the physical objects under the microscope create a constellation out of which truth emerges. Understood this way, the scientific project does not seem to be all that different from the production of the Bible. Although Christians do make claims to divine inspiration, the process of creating the Bible, and church doctrine more generally, seems remarkably similar to the production 9 ◆ λογοσ
of scientific consensus. Networks, largely consisting of clergymen, argued over the veracity of texts and whether to accept or reject them as canon based on their perceived merits. Through this dialogue, and then subsequently through their formal hierarchy and networks of churches and didactic institutions, early theologians were able to create and propagate the Holy Scripture. While one may argue that this process was not divinely inspired, one cannot dismiss the Bible’s truth simply because it was constructed in community. Moving from this premise, we reach a thornier question: that of Young Earth Creationism. Young Earth Creationists believe that the earth was created within the last ten thousand years. They base this belief on a factual-historical understanding of the genealogies found throughout the Pentateuch and on a literal interpretation of the creation passages in Genesis, believing such passages to be descriptively true. Some creationists attempt to stop the scientific debate short by claiming the Earth was created with the appearance of age, and this is why science has found the conclusions it has.
Now, why would people believe such things? Well, it really has to do with with competing systems of truth and truth production. Young Earth Creationism is a modern-day fideism. It believes that faith is primary to reason. If one holds that the Christian God exists and the Bible is the inspired word of God, then Young Earth Creationism can logically follow from the above two premises. This is not to say that such a conclusion is sound, or that Christians must or even should be Young Earth Creationists. This is just to say, that if one has the required intellectual priors, one may validly extrapolate from the claim “the Bible does not lie” that Genesis must be descriptively true. Additionally, for the believer, the epistemological claims of science can never be placed above the claims of God, given through divine revelation, due to the precedence of divinely revealed truth over truth discovered by fallible humans (that is, science). As such, scientific claims will never be able to supercede the claims of God. How, then, should those of us who believe in the historical claims of science respond to this? The response is not to mock or denigrate those who hold these claims. As stated before,
“Rather than simply oppressing all Young Earth Creationists, the better response is to attack Young Earth Creationism within its own priors.”
10 ◆ λογοσ
these claims rest on the idea that truth shared by God Himself, who created everything, is stronger or more true than that which can be discovered through humans, imperfect as we are. The correct response is rather to acknowledge first that Young Earth Creationism is a valid intellectual position that simply requires different priors than many of its critics hold. Rather than simply oppressing all Young Earth Creationists, the better response is to attack Young Earth Creationism within its own priors. One possible critique is that Genesis offers two distinct chronologies of creation that are incompatible with the other when read literally. Another point of evidence is that the Bible makes incorrect scientific claims, as exemplified in the Book of Joshua: “And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day” (Joshua 10:13 KJV). In short, the proper response to Young Earth Creationists is to present a theological argument that is grounded in their own axioms (that the Christian God exists and the Bible is His Word) rather than in scientific fact. If the responder is first able to move the Young Earth Creationist to accept, or at least consider, that Scripture does not demand the earth be young, that the Bible can still be true even if the earth is old, then scientific facts presenting the antiquated nature of the earth instantly become much more accessible and persuasive. In all of this, it should be recognized that Young Earth Creationism is not a position held exclusively by religious nutjobs or the uneducated masses, but rather a position that rests on funda-
mentally different assumptions and claims than that of mainstream scientific discourse. As it is very difficult to fully replace systems of knowledge production, it is the work of the theologian, not the scientist, to debate Young Earth Creationism..
Tommy Schacht is a sophomore in Pierson College, majoring in History. Citations 1. Kofman, Ava. “Bruno Latour, the Post-Truth Philosopher, Mounts a Defense of Science.” The New York Times. October 25, 2018. 2. Item
11 ◆ λογοσ
Fighting for the First Amendment By Habib Olapade
“[Americans] are a religious presuppose a Supreme Being to worship as one chooses. W variety of beliefs and creeds a deem necessary. We sponso government that shows no and that lets each flourish ac herents and the app
- William O. Douglas Zo 12 ◆ λογοσ
s people whose institutions g. We guarantee the freedom We make room for as wide a as the spiritual needs of man or an attitude on the part of partiality to any one group ccording to the zeal of its adpeal of its dogma.”
orach v. Clauson (1952)1
W
hile much about our national life has changed since Former Yale Law Professor William Douglas penned these words in the mid-Twentieth Century, the vitality of religious institutions in American society has never been more robust`. Indeed, Faith-based organizations have reinforced the holes in government safety nets with prisoner-reentry programs, housing for abused women, soup kitchens, hospitals, schools, youth programs, and crime-prevention programs. Churches, synagogues, and mosques, have provided these “works of mercy, love, peace, and justice, with and without government money, because of a divine mandate” alone.2 To preserve and strengthen this role for religion, the Justice Department recently released an internal memorandum directing federal agencies to refrain from discriminating against religious persons and organizations in federal contracting and other government activities on the basis of religion alone.3 Several legal organizations, however, have characterized this insistence on neutrality as constituting government endorsement of religious activity contrary to the First Amendment, and I will argue that this view is mistaken. While the original intention of the First Amendment “must be divined from materials almost as enigmatic as the dreams Joseph was called upon to interpret for Pharaoh,” three things are clear.4 First, the First Amendment’s Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses do not prohibit federal or state governments from acknowledging, accommodating, or encouraging religion. Past practice supports this position. For example, during the eighteenth and nineteenth century, Congress repeatedly appropriated public funds for religious missionaries to provide sectarian education to Native American tribal members. In addition, the 13 ◆ λογοσ
“But would this injustice really be so detrimental to society?”
federal government has a long record of granting exemptions to individuals with religious objections to military service or oath taking. Second, it is clear that the Free Exercise Clause protects religious convictions, even if the actions guided by those convictions are not mandated by a religious organization or shared among adherents of a particular religious tradition. Indeed, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly counseled, religious beliefs need only be sincerely held to command the First Amendment’s protection, as long as, of course, they do not breach the law elsewhere. Finally, the Free Exercise Clause prohibits the government from discriminating against or imposing peculiar burdens on individuals or organizations because of their religious beliefs or status, as clarified by the Supreme Court in Everson v. Board of Education in 1946 Justice Hugo Black’s opinion declared that the government may not exclude “Catholics, Lutherans, Mohammedans, Baptists, Jews, Methodists, Non-believers, Presbyterians, or the member of any other faith, because of their faith, or lack of it, from receiving the benefits of public welfare legislation.”5 It is not difficult to see why this is so, given pervasive federal spend14 ◆ λογοσ
ing on matters that were traditionally reserved to state regulation such as education, criminal rehabilitation, and disaster relief. Excluding religious groups from public benefits programs would place a heavy thumb on the scale against religion. But would this injustice really be so detrimental to society? Throughout our nation’s history, religious sects have dedicated themselves to compassionately caring for the weakest and most vulnerable amongst us. Christian organizations such as Habitat for Humanity, for instance, have helped hundreds of Connecticut residents build and own homes, and countless others have contracted with financially compromised state and local governments to provide food assistance, job training, adult education, domestic violence counseling, and a quality private school education to the underprivileged. The churches, synagogues, and mosques that provides these services are just as deserving of the state’s general fire and police protection as our neighborhood mom-and-pop sole proprietorships. The public benefits of religious institutions certainly do not stop there. Religious colleges and institutions also benefit American society, providing opportunities for students to integrate service
with their studies. Students and professors in these institutions may be far more likely to accept the injunctions of their foundational religious teachings to take care of the foreigner, the poor and the needy (often through public service trips abroad, for example). Such individuals are more likely to embrace the challenging principle that the value of one’s life is measured not primarily by what one achieves in a secular occupation, but by how well one serves others. This humanitarian work serves not only to benefit the religious sects involved, but also to reduce cultural divides between nations and religions abroad. The Constitution does not allow the government to establish religious institutions of higher learning or to institute the non-profit religious charities that often partner with them, but the Constitution does not prevent the government from according such groups equal status with their secular counterparts in the marketplace and society.
Habib Olapade is a student at Yale Law School, Class of 2020. Citations 1. Douglas, William Orville, and Supreme Court Of The United States. U.S. Reports: Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306. 1951. Periodical. https://www. loc.gov/item/usrep343306/. 2. Goodman, Judith b. Nova Law Review. Charitable Choice: The Ramifications of Government Funding for Faith-Based Health Care Services. Volume 26, Issue 2. Article 10. 2002. page 604. Nova Law Review is produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press (bepress). http://nsuworks.nova.edu/nlr 3. https://www.justice.gov/jm/1-15000-respect-religious-liberty-0 4. Jackson, Robert H. Concurring Opinion. U.S. Reports: Youngstown Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579. 1951. Periodical. https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep343579/ 5. Black, Hugo. Opinion of the Court. U.S. Reports: Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1. 1946. Periodical. https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep330001/.
15 ◆ λογοσ
The Feeling of Decision By Sherry Ann Morgenstern
This piece explores the role rationalization plays in sin during the moment of temptation, and the phenomenological experience of choosing evil over good in that moment.
A
lice knows that lying is wrong. Every source she could possibly draw from confirms this moral truth: reason, experience, authority, intuition, and so on. Yet, when Sophia asks Alice whether or not she completed that long outstanding favor for Sophia, the temptation for Alice to say she did and just do it later overwhelms her. Alice thinks about how much smoother life would be for both of them, the embarrassment and frustration they both avoid, and the lack of consequences the small lie will bear. She arbitrarily adjusts the definition of lying in her mind. She entertains doubts about 16 ◆ λογοσ
first principles. She pretends evil is not so bad as long as it is a baby evil. Babies are harmless. This cycle of temptation, rationalization, and sin plagues the human experience. It takes a particularly vicious form among those who excel at rationalizing. Take another example: Grendel commits the sin of gluttony, and a stomach ache, dizziness, and exhaustion immediately follow. Earlier, she had practiced the virtue of abstinence and felt energized and focused. Nonetheless, at the moment of temptation, she chooses to eat in excess again, even while remembering the results
of both the virtue and the vice. She accomplishes this feat by half-heartedly believing that she can always start practicing virtue tomorrow. She imagines how delicious the food will taste. She tells herself she does not care about virtue that much anyway. Finally, she tells herself to stop thinking about it and just eat it already. There are four kinds of rationalizing at work in Grendel’s stream of consciousness: 1. Deferral. You can always improve your life / kick a habit / develop a habit at some point in the future, and there is no tangible advantage to doing so now. 2. Visualization. By imagining the immediate “payoff” of the sin, you tempt yourself further by increasing the desire to recreate the experience. Your imagination is usually accurate in that the sin is immediately gratifying. 3. Alteration of Values. You value the good you can receive now over the goods you might receive later. E.g., in the moment of temptation, you value pleasure more than health and avoidance of pain. 4. Discontinuation of Thought. You tell yourself to stop thinking about the decision and just make it already. No further reasoning takes place. This kind of rationalization is successful because each half-truth contains, indeed, an element of truth. To understand the persuasiveness of each
rationalization, consider the truth of each statement alongside the less immediate truth that the rationalization ignores: 1. Deferral TRUTH: You can always start improving your life later. HIDDEN TRUTH: It is always better to start improving your life now, as that is the only way to maximize your potential. 2. Visualization TRUTH: The item is desirable, and acting upon your immediate want will recreate the pleasurable experience. HIDDEN TRUTH: You are selectively visualizing a good. The less tangible good – in Grendel’s case, the rewards of abstinence – is much better. It is also more difficult to visualize with all the senses. 3. Alteration of Values TRUTH: If you value immediate gratification over long-term benefits, choosing to be immediately gratified is consistent with your values. HIDDEN TRUTH: You do not value immediate gratification, since once a certain amount of time passes you consistently wish you had decided otherwise (i.e., you repent). The belief that your values have changed results from insufficient consideration of the alternatives. 4. Discontinuation of Thought TRUTH: After a certain amount of reasoning, it is sometimes good to simply make a decision. HIDDEN TRUTH: You have not exhausted all forms of reasoning and are using the nuclear option to relieve yourself of this responsibility.
17 ◆ λογοσ
However, knowing these forms of rationalization and even recognizing them as they occur does not necessarily prevent one from choosing evil. How is this possible? After all, in addition to their capacity to reason, Christians through their baptism receive an indelible spiritual mark of belonging to Christ (CCC 1272). Their sins wash away (Acts 22:16). They die with Christ and rise with him again (Col 2:12). If Christians are permanently grafted onto the body of Christ, how are they able to separate themselves from Him, let alone do so often and carelessly? How is it possible to choose evil while knowing that the thing is evil, and that
Sin can also occur when someone reasons to the best of their ability. Nonetheless, rationalization enables one to act irrationally by manipulating the intellect. It is difficult to choose evil while thinking (and believing) “This is evil. This will hurt me. This will hurt others.” It is much easier to do so when one fixates on other aspects of the act, or quits thinking altogether. Therefore, one way to strengthen the will is to strengthen the intellect. Fixation on God strengthens the intellect by drawing its attention to the most fundamental truths of our existence. Fixation may appear in expressions of gratitude, acts of self-denial, con-
“If Christians are permanently grafted onto the body of Christ, how are they able to separate themselves from Him, let alone do so often and carelessly?” one is reasoning poorly, and that one would be much better off choosing good? It is possible, in part, because fixation increases desire. If Grendel fixates on the sugary object in front of her, its value will appear to increase until she decides it is worth the small sacrifice to her health. If she fixates on the stomachaches it gives her, its value will appear to diminish until she decides eating it is not worth the pain. If she fixates on these characteristics in turn, its value might appear to fluctuate until she is unsure about the correct choice to make and chooses based on some non-rational metric. Sin is not simply a failure to act rationally. 18 ◆ λογοσ
templative prayer, or many other activities. Perseverance in thought similarly helps one fully apply their reason to moments of temptation. This virtue could manifest when one perseveres in a difficult discussion with a friend, seeks understanding about the challenging teachings of one’s faith, or works to arrive at any maximally informed decision. If one practices these habits outside moments of temptation, one can apply them more easily in times of crisis.
Sherry Ann Morgenstern is a senior in Branford College, majoring in Philosophy.
Politics & the Pulpit: Religion in the Public Sphere A
s political rhetoric in the United States has become increasingly vehement and polarizing, tensions have been growing around the invocation of religious rhetoric and sacred texts in civic settings. Recently, these tensions entered into public discourse when a University of California Berkeley student senator, Isabella Chow, abstained from voting on a bill regarding transgender rights. As a part of her abstention, she released a statement describing the reasons why she felt that her faith conflicted with the content of the bill. Immediately following its release, her statement sparked major protests and retaliation on her campus.1 For those familiar with similar cases, this kind of public reaction should not be particularly surprising. Amid the backlash and campus chaos that ensued, Ms. Chow’s justification of her decision to abstain prompted other student groups to release official statements outlining their own opinions on the matter. Varied remarks included claims that her justification was unnecessary and that Christians should never use religious justifications in the realm of secular politics—a radical demand indeed. Is this expectation that our leaders sever their religious beliefs from the political process consistent with American law? And perhaps more importantly, is such an expectation fair to civic leaders who hold religious beliefs? Tony Honore, an Oxford Law Professor and jurist, postulated in The Oxford Journal of Legal Studies that normative justification is intrinsic
By Vienna Scott
to any law. In order to retain the internal order and comprehensiveness that creates non-contradictory legal systems, our lawmakers must offer reasonable justifications for their decisions so that we can understand the purpose of the law in a general sense. In the words of Honore, “to understand the meaning of law requires us, then, to attend to its normative aspect.”2 It is the job of the lawmaker to produce legal texts supported by reasoned argumentation, potentially demonstrating connections to previous law or accepted legal principles. The provision of justification allows citizens to understand new statutes or judicial decisions in the context of their supporting legal rationale and underlying first principles. Although law is tied inseparably from justification, it seems the justification of certain laws could be merely pragmatic, thus disregarding the moral question altogether. However, in “The Necessary Connection Between Law and Morality,” Honore argues that there is an implicit connection to morality in the definition of law, and it is this connection which allows law to take on the full character of obligation and duty. The individual normative justifications behind all statutes and legal standards are rooted in a cohesive morality —for example, a legal system that allowed embezzlement but punished shoplifting would be inco19 ◆ λογοσ
herent. The very practice of legal exegesis relies on moral presuppositions in a way that is not simply contingent but necessary. This underpinning morality “applies to every law and every legal system. The proposed interpretation of every law in every legal system can legally be challenged on the ground that it is not morally defensible, whether the challenge succeeds or fails in a particular instance.”3 Under this conception of the nature of law, discussions of morality should be at the forefront of public conversation. As citizens of a democracy, we must excavate the implicit moral assumptions in law and analyze them. We must critique these assumptions continually in the same way that we edit our laws continually, through a collective process. Since laws may be challenged on moral grounds, it follows that laws may be shaped on the same grounds. Further, we cannot expect leaders, who evaluate laws from their own moral perspective, to somehow strip themselves of their own moral view and remain capable of shaping any laws at all. This is exactly what Senator Chow was expected to do, and thus she abstained from participating in the lawmaking process. For Senator Chow, her Christian beliefs informed her moral code, or, rather, her Christian beliefs were her moral code. While this shocked many students on campus, such a position is nothing foreign to American legal theory. For although the moral principles that serve as the foundation
20 ◆ λογοσ
“While the morality that serves as the foundation for American law is not inherently Christian, the Christian moral code firmly holds many of the same values as those typically incorporated into American legal theory[...]” for American law are not inherently Christian, they include many of the same values as those fundamental to Christian moral theory, such as “values of fairness, equity, justice, honesty, humanity, dignity, prudence, abstention from violence, and a host of other values that conduce to cooperation and coexistence.”4 In short, it is safe to say that there would be a gaping hole left in America’s critical moral theory5 if all of the insights of Christian thought were removed. As law in a liberal democracy is ultimately a “striving” or an otherwise evolving system, the lawmaking process constantly requires new insights and fresh wisdom to thrive. If we treat the underlying moral assumptions of the legal system in the same way, the evolving laws produced by the democratic process would correspond to the evolving substratum of moral principles support-
ing the legal sphere. In this way, creating a better legal system can mean building a more perfect moral foundation that recognizes more fully the truths of human nature. Ultimately, it would be dishonest to cleave American law from the centuries of moral scholarship, legal theory, and truth-seeking that the body of Christian philosophy and literature can provide towards this end. In addition to providing a moral basis to much of American law, the Christian faith speaks to the relationship the faithful should have with civic law itself. Although the Acts of the Apostles demand that “we must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29 ESV), Peter the Apostle also writes that we must “be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God....” (1 Peter 2:1315 ESV). This command is repeated by Paul in his letter to Titus, a founder of the Church in Crete, when he writes, “remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work” (Titus 3:1 ESV). Even if we believe that God is the source of
ultimate truth and authority, bodies of law beyond God’s Holy Scripture will inevitably perpetuate in our fallen world, and we are called to honor and respect the authorities so instituted. But unlike the past subjects of monarchies or oligarchies, citizens of a democratic nation possess duties beyond submission to Crown or council. Citizens partake in the political process through the obvious mechanisms such as voting or running for office. But in a nation where the trajectory is owned by the collective hands, for those who proclaim Christian truth as the ultimate understanding of human nature and morality, what is true, what is right, and what is good, there is an obligation to join in the shaping of the moral views of the nation and thus the shaping of law. Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. writes the “Letter from Birmingham Jail” about his vision for the church in the civil rights movement. Highlighting the historical impact Christianity had on removing true evils from public practice, he critiques the modern church’s inefficacy at governmental influence. He writes:
“There was a time when the church was very powerful – in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed…By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contests. Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status quo... If today’s church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century.”6
21 ◆ λογοσ
Martin Luther King Jr. recognized the ills that befall a nation when the pursuit of a national morality progresses without church communities boldly, fervently, and unceasingly proclaiming the morality they know to be true. MLK called for Christians to turn from a position of political complacency to a position of political advocacy. His sentiment was echoed in the words of John Adams, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”7 Morality and politics have a history of entanglement in America, even our supreme law was founded and shaped to stand upon a moral citizenry. The controversy surrounding Senator Chow gives Christians a chance to rejoin this ongoing national dialogue, to understand the consequences of a national morality cleaved from truth, and to acknowledge our own responsibility as citizens to determine the future of American law. Vienna Scott is a sophomore in Benjamin Franklin College, majoring in Political Science.
22 ◆ λογοσ
Citations 1. Nanette Asimov, “UC Berkeley campus senator abstains from a vote. Now students want her out” (San Francisco Chronicle). 2. Tony Honore, The Necessary Connection Between Law and Morality (Oxford Journal of Legal Studies Vol. 22, No. 3) 491. 3. Honore 494. 4. Honore 494. 5. C Critical morality is the set of general moral principles that a given society upholds as the most important. These principles can be an ideal set of values the society is aiming to embody, but likely falls short of in practice. These principles are also used to criticize or measure actual social institutions, the way morality is functioning practically in society. 6. Martin Luther King Jr, “Letter from Birmingham Jail.” 16 Apr. 1963. 7. John Adams, “Letter to the Massachusetts Militia”, 11 Oct. 1798.
ers
Fis h
th by
e Wayside By Naasey Kanko Arthur
B
eing Christian, I know and delight in the truth that an all-powerful entity made me and loves me for eternity. Yet, as I make my way to class on Broadway and see people holding up signs affirming my beliefs, I feel differently. I get chills, a mixture of shame and confusion, when a well-intentioned stranger disrupts my day to tell me that God loves me and wants to give me eternal life. If I, a believer, feel this way, how much more must street evangelism and its characteristic methods repel non-believers from the gospel, rather than attract them to it?
Street evangelism manifests a classic tension in our faith: accepting the call to diligent pursuit of God’s larger plan while accepting the mysterious, all-encompassing grace of God that requires no human assistance. How do we reconcile our desire to spread the gospel with our recognition that God can work in what we see as surprisingly simple ways? Most street evangelism methods, like other forms of evangelism, focus on aspects of the faith that may not translate well for those outside of the faith. For instance, highlighting a sentimental aspect of Christianity (such as God’s love for His children) may not be suitable for the intellectual community of Yale, which would likely find such a presentation ridiculous. Arguably, street evangelists need to focus more on their intended audience. As an interesting counterpart, the evangelical methods of early Christians include a strong awareness of the audience. The letter to the Hebrews, for example, utilises several parallels between Jesus and the major prophets of the Hebrew people, as recorded in the Old Testament. The letter goes on to say that “Jesus has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses—as much more glory as the builder of a house has more honour than the house itself ” (Hebrews 3:4 ESV). Similarly, Phillip’s message to the Jewish eunuch in the book of Acts hinges on Isaiah’s prophecy of the future Messiah of Israel, a scriptural reference that would have been familiar to him (Acts 8:26-40).. Applying this idea to the Yale community, perhaps an intellectual approach to faith or a focus on Biblical themes of social justice could encourage greater discourse. Perhaps the signs should have taken an apologetic or theological perspective, focusing on themes such as the 23 ◆ λογοσ
afterlife, eternity, and the origin of life to appeal to passersby with such interests. However, it is arguable that the signs themselves, and not their content, are the main factor of contention. A better option might be to completely replace signs with books or recommended podcasts on apologetics or theology—topics that could engage the Yale community in a real way. Additionally, one could capitalize on God’s desire to build a better, perfect society. Indeed, “we have a social gospel” as emphasized by the juxtaposition of the faith with the
countless stories of others being repelled by the “over-zealous, forceful, disruptive and unempathetic” tactics used by street evangelists they once encountered. In this way, some street evangelism creates space for a generalized interpretation of the larger Christian community as such. This interpretation of Christianity is especially prevalent within counter-Christian rhetoric which promotes the idea that Christianity blinds its followers against rational thinking and runs a manipulative market strategy under the guise of evangelism. People
“Street evangelism enables believers to share the gospel with individuals outside of their social circles, whereas more personal methods such as casual conversation are limited to the people with whom one interacts regularly.” civil rights movement in much of the 20th century.1 The faith, as it was designed, could be represented as a catalyst of social progress and equity, just as the author of Colossians tells his audience: “Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all” (Colossians 3:11 ESV). It is a reasonable fear that the more traditional methods of street evangelism may lead more onlookers permanently away from the Christian gospel than attract them to it. I have heard 24 ◆ λογοσ
then internalize such preconceptions about the faith, making it difficult to have real discussions about the faith at all. This begs the question as to whether street evangelism does more harm than good. Although street evangelism has its potential drawbacks, it still serves as a sincere medium for believers to carry out their calling to spread their gospel. Relative to other methods of evangelism, it does possess unique advantages. Street evangelism enables believers to share the gospel with individuals outside of their social circles, whereas more
personal methods such as casual conversation are limited to the people with whom one interacts regularly. This implies that not only more people can be reached, especially if more effective methods as aforementioned are employed, but also a more diverse group of individuals can be reached. The latter has multiplying effects on subsequent possible audiences, since all else being equal, believers will be found in a larger number of social circles. Street evangelism can also serve as a bold display of a believer’s confidence in the truth of the gospel. The mere exposure of a person to the gospel is at least a first step for the person to consider the faith, which may potentially lead the person to belief in the future. While these are all important improvements to be considered and effected, it remains clear that street evangelism certainly does not maximize our gospel sharing efforts. Should such outreach “maximization” be a factor of consideration when evangelizing? The Bible emphasizes the infinite value of a single life. In the parable of the lost sheep, the Shepherd risks losing his ninety-nine other sheep just to save the one lost sheep (Luke 15:1-7). This action certainly does not seem efficient or maximizing or even logical. However, this parable poignantly shows our Savior’s incomprehensible commitment to each and every one of us and His appreciation for the seemingly insignificant. Because every life contains infinite value, our efforts are indeed maximized by the salvation even of a single individual. But why stop there? Street evangelism is not a perfect way of sharing the gospel with others, but there are still concrete improvements worth considering. Simply put, we should look to embody the surpassing wisdom and love of our Creator in our efforts to share His truth with others.
Naasey Kanko Arthur is a sophomore in Pauli Murray College.
Citations 1. Rauschenbusch, Walter. 1917. A Theology for the Social Gospel. New York: The Macmillan Company.
25 ◆ λογοσ
Chichester Psalms: Hearing the Music of Scripture By Raquel Sequeira
“Urah, hanevel, v’chinor! A-irah shachar!” “Awake, O harp and lyre! I will awake the dawn!” (Psalm 108:2, ESV)
W
ith a shocking crash of cymbals and dissonant chords, a chorus of voices proclaims this psalmist’s prologue in the original Hebrew. The scriptural texts and the piece are introduced together, with music and language inextricable.1 For me, the joy of singing Leonard Bernstein’s Chichester Psalms was similarly inextricable from spiritual revelation—an embodied lesson on worship in the Psalms. The Biblical Psalms are a collection of prayers and praises from a wide range of time pe-
26 ◆ λογοσ
riods and authors.2 The important point, as C.S. Lewis notes in his Reflections on the Psalms, is that “the Psalms are poems, and poems intended to be sung: not doctrinal treatises, nor even sermons.”3 Nevertheless, it’s clear in other parts of the Bible—notably, for example, in the book of Hebrews—that the Psalms were also revered as sacred scripture and the Word of God. As poetry, the language of the Psalms is rich with intentionality and physicality, which conveys visceral and often contradictory emotions. These emotional conflicts demonstrate that in spite of our powerfully rational minds—the very thing that allows us to communicate our emotions with compelling language—our faith itself is often wavering and, at its core, irrational. Like the psalmists, we bless God and we curse Him; we fear Him and we fear the world and our enemies; we feel strong and we feel weak; we worship and despair, sing and cry. To me, Leonard Bernstein’s Chichester Psalms perfectly expresses this range and complexity of emotion. As one of my fellow singers put it, the piece is an excellent poetic reading of the Psalms. Poetry fundamentally takes words at their sounds, using language as something more than symbolic (that is, for more than its content). In each word and collection of words, poetry seeks meaning that belongs inherently to the structure, journeying back to when those meanings first emerged: it is in tune with the ancientness of language.
sion to the temple in Jerusalem. In this part of the piece and in these Psalms, we praise the Lord with all our strength and intensity, calling all the nations and even the physical landscape of the earth to rejoice with us. Then, in the second movement comes a miraculous beauty: we submit to the Lord’s peace. The first time I sang this part of the piece accompanied by an orchestra, I felt myself momentarily stunned and brought to tears. The voice of a child sings out the childlike faith of the 23rd Psalm which is set to a melody as sublime and haunting as the poem. This Psalm that my father sang to me as a lullaby re-entered my heart after many years with the richness of the cellos, the yearning of the violins. We sang a passionate peace. Yet the second movement also tells this truth: that fear constantly wages war against the peace in our hearts. Alongside the Psalms of humble worship, we must grapple with the Psalms of vengeance and judgement, and the second movement ends with the 2nd and 23rd Psalms in conflict. But to me, this conflict embodies the most profound power of scripture, and especially the Psalms: we praise the Lord even when we don’t believe it. Often, we cling only to the memory of belief, hoping that by speaking the words our hearts may be changed. We cry out to God in both praise and despair with incarnate, fallible language; and
“Make a joyful noise to the Lord, all the earth! Serve the Lord with gladness! Come into his presence with singing!” (Psalm 100:1-2, ESV) In a way, then, poetry itself is music, just as music is ancient language. Physical vibrations of a piece of wood or coiled metal convey emotions along a direct path of molecular movement to the inner ear, interpreted by the subconscious brain without the middleman of words as meaning. And so the music is poetry, and the Chichester Psalms is a poetic reading of the psalmists’ poems. In Bernstein’s “Opening Prayer,” (not an official part of the Chichester Psalms, but a fitting prologue) we seem to enter the Holy of Holies for solemn blessing. Then the introduction summons the instruments of worship, and the first movement proclaims the first two verses of Psalm 100 (see above). The music of the first movement evokes the ancient Hebrew court, or perhaps the proces-
27 ◆ λογοσ
“O Lord, my heart is not lifted up; my eyes are not raised too high; I do not occupy myself with things too great and too marvelous for me. But I have calmed and quieted my soul, like a weaned child with its mother; like a weaned child is my soul within me. O Israel, hope in the Lord from this time forth and forevermore.” (Psalm 131, ESV)
28 ◆ λογοσ
the miraculous grace of His perfect incarnation— the promise of the “Word made flesh” (John 1:14 KJV)—is that He hears it. Finally, the third movement is, to me, the most important reading of the poetry of the Psalms. We start with anguish, a despair of ever regaining the peace tentatively claimed in the previous movement. The strings cry out in hopeless dissonance, and these chords eerily disfigure the beautiful prayer melody of the second movement. (I hated this moment in the piece the first time I heard it. The perversion of beauty struck me like a disturbing surrealist painting—worse than mere ugliness because of the tangible twisting of truth.) Yet this hopelessness cannot last. The transition to a tentative major key, like a foggy sunrise, slowly climbs and sheds its dissonance to emerge into the humility of a gentle major fifth arpeggio. Despite the language of meekness, the repentance of the third movement is not austere. Even in the declaration of humility in the text, we see how God’s forgiveness bestows not merely purity, but divinity—holiness. The measures in this movement have seven beats each, the Bible’s number of eternity. The melody is complex and passionate: a relational engagement with the Creator through an act of creativity. This melody, more than any other in the piece, drives meaning and emotion and truth directly and intuitively to the heart. When the upper and lower voices finally join together, we can no longer put the emotion into words, and we sing only “ah’s” instead. The ending of Chichester Psalms feels equally unspeakable in its reverence. But here, we sing in words exactly what our harmony is demonstrating: relationship. Our voices alone forge the final measures of this poetic reading and end this cycle of the psalmists’ journeys. As our voices weave to-
gether, the words implore an even greater unity
“Behold, how good it is and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity.” (Psalm 131:1, KJV)
with one another and with our Creator: In the end, we sing “Amen.” For of course, this poetry—this yearning to convey less and more than words can do, to strike at the very truth of our souls and then communicate it with others—this song of worship has been a prayer. Raquel Sequeira is a sophomore in Timothy Dwight College, majoring in Molecular Biophysics & Biochemistry. Citations 1. “Chichester Psalms,” Stanford Opera Libretti, last modified February 13, 1997, accessed November 3 2018, http://opera.stanford.edu/iu/libretti/ chichester.html. 2. “Psalms,” Biblica, accessed November 3, 2018, https://www.biblica.com/resources/scholar-notes/ niv-study-bible/intro-to-psalms/. 3. C.S. Lewis, Reflections on the Psalms (London: Fontana Books, 1958), Introduction, https://korycapps.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/cs-lewis-on-thepsalms.pdf
29 ◆ λογοσ
True Pleasure By Joseph Brownsberger
30 ◆ λογοσ
I
t was the end of my first year of Yale. My mind had expanded after having been blown at least once a week, my personality had been shaped into something more distinct than ever before, and I was basking in the light of new friendship and independence. Yet however fresh and enriched I seemed on the outside, even to myself, my heart of hearts was crumpled in and crusted over, a sea of uncertainty whose searching I had learned to avoid lest it bring to the surface more painful ignorance. Hume had hit me hard during Directed Studies, and I found myself hard-pressed to justify the beliefs I had always held against his attempt to bring everything transcendental into dust and determined bits of matter. His treatment of free will was especially difficult for me to accept: that “liberty, when opposed to necessity, not to constraint, is the same thing with chance; which is universally allowed to have no existence.”1 Struggling with this assertion of meaninglessness, I held fast to faith largely out of habit and the defiant act of a weary will. Often, I found myself thinking unwittingly from Hume’s dreary perspective. My soul had been beaten and wounded, fighting back with weaker and weaker blows against a new, powerful, misguided intellect. Two weeks of pure pleasure in pastoral Missouri saved me. When I got back to my family’s twenty acres in the northwest corner of the state, I was surrounded by tranquility and beauty, fed by honest labor, and supported by my parents and many siblings. It was in such an atmosphere of sincerity and simple goodness that I found myself immersed in a pleasure more intense than I had ever known. What I felt was not mere sensual gratification—it was a pleasure that moved the core of my being. This was the pleasure of waking up to the
“It may seem strange to say that it was pleasure that saved me.”
May breeze coming in from the burgeoning fields; the pleasure of lying in the dewy grass aside my brother William, looking up at the sun playing through the leaves of the mulberry tree above me; this was the pleasure of watching the red glowing sparks of our campfire fly up in the summer breeze to join the white stars, so full of life against the black sky that they seemed to drip from the heavens and hiss into the mesmerizing embers. It was a pleasure of relationship, too. It was my brother Marcello and I to the right and left of our father, asking questions about theology and about life; it
was a walk down the gravel road with my mother who, with her extraordinary humility, faith, and common sense, washed out the wound of doubt that had been festering in my soul for months and set it to heal into a healthy inquiry. It may seem strange to say that it was pleasure that saved me. Often, especially among Christians, pleasure gets a bad rap. We are told to subordinate those lower desires to reason and love in order to stay focused on Christ. But I would argue that in its purest form, pleasure is in fact a good that leads to God and participates in His good31 ◆ λογοσ
ness. What we normally call “pleasure” is merely a shadow of the thing itself, a weak distortion of that contact between the body and the the good in the world that constitutes true pleasure. And this distortion is all too common: pleasure is perhaps the easiest of good things to be ripped out of its context of temperance and thus warped into an evil. But true pleasure, like its sister, true beauty, wrenches the soul out of the mechanical actions of day-to-day life and inspires it with a vision of what it was meant to be. True pleasure unites body and soul to makes us more fully what we are: human beings. C.S. Lewis, possibly the best writer ever to make these philosophical questions engaging and personal, championed this concept of true pleasure in his fictional book Perelandra. The main character comes to a world unspoiled by sin and encounters alien flora and fauna that yield an immense amount of pleasure, but pleasure that is completely pure. As opposed to most of our common “pleasures” that only cause further desire, this pleasure has a certain uniqueness and character that would only be diluted through in-
ordinate repetition. Lewis compares the eating of a certain fruit, for example, to a gorgeous symphony. It would be crass, he says, to wish to hear that symphony over and over again rather than simply appreciating its uniqueness and beauty in its temporal place.2 Over the course of the book Lewis makes the point that true pleasure is not something sought after; rather, it is received like grace into the depths of the heart. This, I believe, is because true pleasure never really goes away. Once it has made an impact on a person’s being, it has shaped that person’s immortal soul, in a way become part of it, and cannot die—true pleasure ” transcends time. Indeed, I would assert just the opposite of the proverb “all good things come to an end.” It is precisely what is truly good that can never have an end. I think this distinction between true pleasure and brute hedonism could be well-learned by the Yale community and modern culture as a whole. We all run after minor goods and gratifications that can never make us truly happy— we crave pleasure and we bite dust instead. How
“Lewis makes the point that true pleasure is not something sought after; rather, it is received like grace into the depths of the heart.
32 ◆ λογοσ
many luxuries must the modern American have to be satisfied? We are like the sick woman Dante describes in his Divine Comedy during his invective against Florence: she tosses and turns on her luxurious down bed to try to ease a deeper pain that such petty pleasures only exacerbate.3 In a recent talk at Yale, Professor Michael Gorman from the Catholic University of America described our society as operating under “feelings management.” We strive to maximize good emotions and sensory gratifications, and this we call happiness.4 But how much wider and more profound is true happiness! We have built a hedonistic paradise, we have achieved our goal of “feelings management,” and yet there is a life-changing kind of pleasure, standing at the door and knocking, waiting to be realized and welcomed. It is something more than emotion, more than the senses, a difference of kind rather than degree compared with what we call “pleasure.” We grasp after copper coins when there are gold ones waiting to be poured into our laps. Those two weeks of pleasure in Missouri changed me. They did not solve all of my problems, nor did they commune some mystical experience that smothered my doubts and struggles. What they did give me, however, was faith. Not faith as belief, but rather faith as trust, a consignment of my life to Christ’s grace. Through pleasure, I saw myself as one whole person, like a painting that seems like a meaningless sum of bits of paint when seen up close, but that takes
on a transcendent beauty when seen fully. Pleasure dispersed the hard nihilism that had been swarming around my heart by showing me the sublime that lies within the mundane, by showing me the beauty of the world as a united, ordered ensemble rather than a sum of infinite atoms, and ultimately, by showing me the beauty of my own humanity. Joseph Brownsberger is a sophomore in Silliman College. Citations 1. Hume David, Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals (New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 1975), 96. 2. C.S. Lewis, Perelandra, (London: The Bodley Head, 1967), chap. 4, https://gutenberg.ca/ebooks/ lewiscs-perelandra/lewiscs-perelandra-00-h.html. 3. Alighieri, Dante. Purgatorio. New York: Oxford University Press, 1961 [Canto VI] 4. Gorman, Michael. “On Moral Relativism.” Lecture, from the Thomistic Institute, New Haven, CT, October 15, 2018.
33 ◆ λογοσ
Writer’s Block and Worship W
hen I first offered to write this piece, I overestimated how much time I would have to work, underestimated how much time I would spend procrastinating, and I was probably overly confident in my writing abilities. Needless to say, I realized that glorifying the Father through our talents is much harder than it sounds, and that various barriers will inexplicably but inevitably fall into place to hamper the creative process. There is nothing more frustrating than wanting to write, knowing what one wants to communicate and the form the idea will take, and then sitting down in front of a blank paper, words and ability failing. Such has been much of my experience with creative writing. Of the notebooks full of my ideas, only a very small amount have ever been wholly expressed. Ideas come, but they never reach paper. A is tangible, B is not. Though writer’s block has never plagued me when writing about myself or nonfiction topics, when entering that fuzzy realm of subjective ideas, it becomes almost impossible for me to write with ease. Still, by embracing the difficulties of the process, we learn what God wants to tell us. We are first and foremost His children, and though we are not even worthy to say His name, He invites us to call Him Abba. Only through His perfect love can we approach Him. Psalm 100 tells us to “[c]ome into His presence with singing” (100:2). Thus in His presence, we are free to find true fulfillment by praising Him with our thoughts, ac34 ◆ λογοσ
tions, and gifts. Ephesians 2:10 notes, “For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in us.” If God graciously gives us talents, they must have a Divine purpose – to fill the earth with His glory. But what does it mean when a singer is struck voiceless, or a writer wordless? I think this may be God’s way of humbling us. I have always thought of myself as a writer, and I am told by some that I am a good one. I have taken a certain amount of pride in my writing, and I am ready to admit that it is more pride than is decent. I thought of my abilities as a writer as something entirely in my control. When we arrogantly think that our gifts are simply the results of our own doing and disregard their endowment by the Father, we no longer use our talents to glorify Him but rather to hear ourselves talk. We become self-righteous, thinking that our undeserved blessings somehow make us better in God’s eyes. Only in gratitude can we work to praise and celebrate His beauty, rather than to differentiate ourselves
Make a joyful noise to the Lord, all the ear his presence with singing! Know that the Lo are his; we are his people, and the she thanksgiving, and his courts with praise! G Lord is good; his steadfast love endures fo
(Psalm 10
By Sharla Moody from our peers. While we search for ways to uniquely depict Christ’s love, we must not forget that the perfect depiction of His love already exists in His willing submission to crucifixion, to pay our debts and bring us into fellowship with Him. It is easy to become focused on our own talents, but it is important that we always recognize from where they came. They are bestowed upon us by the Father for the simple matter of realizing, communicating, and praising Him. Psalm 100 concludes with the words, “Give thanks to Him; bless His name! For the Lord is good; His steadfast love endures forever, and His faithfulness to all generations” (Psalm 100:4-5 ESV). Rather than focusing on how we can use our talents to further ourselves, we should seek out ways to bring the Father the praises He deserves and celebrate His infinite lovingkindness. Sometimes in the process of trying to praise Him we realize our own arrogance, and we realize our fault of trying to differentiate ourselves from fellow believers. We become like the Pharisees. Our
rth! Serve the Lord with gladness! Come into ord, he is God! It is he who made us, and we eep of his pasture. Enter his gates with Give thanks to him; bless his name! For the orever, and his faithfulness to all generations
worship centers around ourselves rather than the Creator of all things, and we cannot love our fellow man because we are constantly comparing our worship to his. Worship is not intended to be an activity in which one elevates himself but instead a time of humility in the face of the greatness and holiness of Christ. We offer to God a rebuff instead of reverence when we fall into the trap of thinking worship is a product of our own gifts. Thankfully, the story doesn’t have to end here. When we find that we are priding ourselves in our worship, we need to return to the original definition of worship. Psalm 100 determines that worship is intended to praise the Father, in humility, for His greatness and love: When we refocus or worship away from ourselves and towards Him, we use our gifts in the way that they were always intended: to humble at the feet of God. Experiencing a creative roadblock is one of the most frustrating hindrances we can face, but by considering God as the point of our work, we can reach for a fuller fellowship with Him. Sharla Moody is a first-year in Berkeley College.
00:1-5 ESV) 35 ◆ λογοσ
B
ehind a fig tree, Adam and Eve stop to catch their breath. They stare nervously at each other, but their eyes keep falling to the ground. Shame weighs down on them like heavy, itchy sackcloth garments--and they know they cannot escape their Maker’s gaze. The least they can do is cover their shame with fig leaves... A few minutes ago, Adam and Eve rested on the green grass holding each other’s hands. They were kings in a world built for them. Stewards, co-creators, namers of all animals. Their robes were the glory and favor of the Maker. But now, they are hiding. Their hearts have never beaten so wildly. Before now they have never even broken a sweat. Blood is rushing to their heads as they sob in silence and confusion. They are fugitives in their own kingdom. They have infected their descendants with their shame and now humanity will inherit an inclination towards evil called original sin. Even nature will resist their shamefulness with thorns, parasites, pestilence, and diseases. “Here,” the well-intentioned evangelical preacher will interject, “begins the Devil’s charge against you.” He will tell you you were born with guilt inherited from Adam, compounded by every commandment you have ever broken against an infinitely holy God. He will speak of courtrooms, a guilty verdict against you, and Christ’s punishment in your stead. This mode of understanding Christ’s sacrifice is called Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA).1 This was one of Martin Luther’s preferred illustrations to emphasize the totality and completeness of Christ’s redemption. In legal terms, according to PSA, we are simul justus et peccator: at once wretched sinners and completely forgiven saints.2
36 ◆ λογοσ
Fig Leaves in the Fall *** I grew up as an evangelical pastor’s kid, hearing this legal dimension of the gospel and the importance of deciding to accept the pardon. But I heard less about the process of deliverance from shame and feelings of worthlessness that God does in guilt and anxiety-stricken people like me. Based on what I had learned, these feelings were just symptoms of a lack of faith. This short-sighted understanding of Christ’s message tainted my otherwise joyous undergrad years. I arrived at Yale as a transfer student from Miami-Dade College, a sophomore in my third year of college. My first semester, I felt like I had finally found a true home. Everyone was bright and very different from most people back home. But as the weeks went by, I noticed that many students on campus slept little and skipped meals, and I felt I must have been doing something wrong. I nearly always got A-minuses so I rarely tried for more, certain I wasn’t good enough. The papers with the most sweat and love would get the same grade as ones I barely tried on, so I resigned myself to not bother trying to excel. I was nothing like my type-A, immigrant-success-story father. Instead, I kept myself busy with Christian com-
a job that worsened my depression and spiked my anxiety, then resigned four months later and started looking for a therapist.
By Pedro Enamorado
*** Satan had deceived me with a false promise, the same he made to Eve: God left you incomplete, and you must finish the job with your own hands. Reject God’s pronouncement over you – that you are “very good” and that He made you in His image – and prove your worthiness to Him. I identify with Adam and Eve, as a human and
munity, whose love helped me feel like I actually belonged at Yale. It helped me cover that constant feeling of shame and brought me genuine peace and joy. Like Adam and Eve, I had a kingdom made for me where I was happy and felt close to God. I paid little mind to the anxiety issues that arose occasionally and thought that my constant underlying sense of shame was a normal part of my Christian walk. When I felt insufficient, I ran to proxies for God instead of directly to God, choosing to cover instead of reveal myself to Him. On May 23rd, 2017, I walked down the aisle in the rain with the graduating class of Ezra Stiles College and got my diploma. It seemed like the rest of my class got honors while I just got the scraps: “distinguished in the major.” Despite the joys of community I had found, I was certain I had done Yale wrong. That week, I moved back home to Miami and fell into a depression. The fig leaves of Christian community, busyness, and distractions that covered my sense of shame were gone. All I had were my thoughts of insufficiency and a toxic attitude that kept my family at a distance. Suffixes of “un-” and “under-” buffeted me: “unemployed,” “unworthy,” “underachiever.” I got
“And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them” Gen 3:20 (ESV) as an imperfect image-bearer of God. But God provided a solution, covering their nakedness with more permanent garments: the skin of an innocent animal. God also promised Eve a serpent-killing son to restore humanity and all of creation (Genesis 3:15). The Son’s glory in reflecting the Father’s image and His perfect love would make Him the new Adam, the father of a redeemed humanity. When Jesus touched a leper’s rotting flesh and made it smooth and healthy, when He 37 ◆ λογοσ
touched the dirty ears and tongue of a deaf-mute man to restore his hearing and speech, when He held a conversation with a woman who had given up on love to live in adultery, He transferred His bodily wholeness and spiritual beauty to them. Jesus looked at them not with pity, but with compassion. He gave them hope and comfort. They became united with the Perfect Man and through Him reunited with the Perfect God. Jesus calls all the poor and broken to bind themselves to Him to receive rest and wholeness. *** After quitting my job last December, I moved back up to New Haven in January and began doing political science research. Even in a familiar community and living with Christian brothers, my depression resurfaces occasionally; but a little over a month into therapy, my healing is going well. I’m rediscovering who I am--and who I am not. I am not essentially a Yalie. My association with my history degree, my employment status, my political party, and my pastor father are all ultimately meaningless. Trying to live up to these identities is to bite the fruit that Eve bit: I will fail by the very act of striving. My true identity is determined by my association with God and His forgiveness and love. My healing began when I sat down to meditate on that truth: that I am called desirable, a king, and an heir by God, who transforms my identity. I started out with feelings of shame and inadequacy, visualizing myself as a dirty beggar in tattered clothes – like the vulgar crowd Jesus sought out on earth. Then, like the parable, I saw myself finding a seat at the farthest end of a long table with the King at the head (Luke 14:10-12). 38 ◆ λογοσ
But the King called me over to sit at His right hand and clothed me in fine garments. He looked at me, a beggar in royal garments, with pride and love. He chose me to sit by His side. Only then, the chatter of negative self-criticism in my head began to die out. This image of me in royal garments began to replace my image of myself as a worthless beggar. For the first time in years, I began to believe the Jesus really does delight in taking away our shame and sorrows to make us His. I realize now that the only thing that matters about me is that I am a wretched sinner that Christ looked upon with eyes of love, upon whom Christ has laid His hands and pronounced, “I am willing. Be clean.” He cleansed me of my shame and freed me from false identities. He took my pathetic figleaf garments and covered me with His own skin, the skin of a stainless, sacrificial lamb. I have nothing to hide or be ashamed of anymore. I stand before God as a prince, destined to rise from the dead and inherit the earth in the Eden-to-come with Christ and all His saints.
Pedro Enamorado graduated in 2017 with a B.A. in History. Citations 1.https://www.theopedia.com/penal-substitutionary-atonement 2.https://www.ligonier.org/blog/simul-jus tus-et-peccator/
Psalms for Today By Kayla Bartsch
Kayla Bartsch is a junior in Hopper College, majoring in Philosophy & Humanities..
A Psalm of Lament
A Psalm of Praise
How do I pray, O God When my heart is as a stone And the words fall cold Upon my lips?
When a fuchsia sun sings aflame And the light turns all leaves lavender Along the wooded way, How can I keep from whisp’ring your praise O God?
How do I pray O Lord When the dark night shadows my soul And only my fears echo In the chambers of my mind?
When the first frost freckles the grassy floor, And drops of glass dapple the sallow Behind the faded fence, How can I keep from breathing your Name O Lord?
Who can hear my silent pleas for rescue?
Your voice carries across all Creation!
Crippled in conscious despair Broken into angles inhuman The floor cradles my woes. A million soft fingers bend Beneath the weight of things felt.
Lifted from my stolid languor Enveloped by a Spirit above Your joy fires my heart. A million faithful bow Beneath the weight of your Glory.
Were You listening to me then O Lord?
I can hear their song in the quiet of love –
With mind pulsing Pulse flattened – I was met with Silence.
All Glory be to Him Who speaks to us in Silence. 39 ◆ λογοσ
[untitled] "God guides us by beauty." Straight into God's light plunged I, perfect, precisely in spite of imploding lack-loves and grey imps of the self. And I fell in a net full of feeling, where vanishings fleshed, plumping ripe round my being. What could I be seeing, but beauty sojourning towards source, spark, or someone — ?
I'm kneeling again. Know me, magnetic no one.
Magda Andrews-Hoke
40 ◆ λογοσ
Prayer for a normal god `My God, get in the boat. I see, impossibly, you stay afloat, but not I, Lord, not I. Tempt not. Exempt me from this element. I'd die in an attempt at imitation. Live in what I can understand. Lord, walk on land.
Magda Andrews-Hoke
Magda Andrews-Hoke is a senior in Saybrook College, majoring in Linguistics. 41 ◆ λογοσ
Like or dislike one of the articles? Interested in writing for our journal or blog? Email us at yale.logos@ gmail.com! Check out our website and blog at: www.yalelogos.com Like us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/ YaleLogos
λογοσ