Yale Logos: Winter 2011 by Yale Logos

I JUST

DON’T

!"# $%

win

ter

ORGANIZED RELIGION Does organized religion have any place in capturing true spirituality?

also inside

A Head Without a Body | 4 Comparative Ethics | 7 Faith and Fiction | 20 J.K. Rowling and the Bible| 26

Yale’s Undergraduate Christian Magazine

th lo e go

201 1

in principio

from the editor-in-chief

“I am spiritual but I do not believe in organized religion.” If spirituality is so divine, would adding something so human as organization only taint? Would structure unnecessarily bring flaws like hypocrisy, hierarchy, and disputes to religion? If spirituality is the relationship between an individual and the divine, should not spirituality simply be personal for that one individual? Answers in the affirmative prompt many of us to abstain from an affiliation with an organized religion. But these questions assume that structure is only an embellishment to an already existing spirituality. What if, in Christianity, we considered the church to be intricately woven within, and not next to, the identity of Christianity itself? What if we considered Christ as the head of the church and the members of the church as crucial parts of a body? What exactly is the “church” anyway? In this issue of Logos, we hope to explore the idea of “church” as something that may be used for a purpose beyond mere accessorizing. We hope to investigate the perspective that detaches “organization” from constraint of spirituality. Perhaps organization can be the foundation to experiencing not the limitations, but rather, the richness of faith.

λλ executive directors April Koh (TD ’14) Yena Lee (SY ’12) editor-in-chief Jeanni Hwang (TD ’14) business manager Richard Lee (MC ’14) production manager Courtney McEachon (PC ’15) assistant director Joseph Kim (ES ’15) board of custodians Yena Lee (SY ’12) April Koh (TD ’14) Jeanni Hwang (TD ’14) board advisor Gregory Ganssle, Ph.D. Lecturer of Philosophy

Jeanni Hwang Editor-In-Chief

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.

disclaimer

The Logos is published by Yale College students; neither Yale University nor its affiliates are responsible for the material herein.

the logos

involvement

Interested in writing an article for The Logos or responding to one of the articles in this issue? We are seeking new writers and members. Contact jeanni.hwang@yale.edu or more information.

subscriptions

Your subscription will make future issues of The Logos possible. Contact april.koh@yale.edu for more information.

thanks

This issue of The Logos has been made possible in part by the generous contributions and continuing support of the Cecil B. Day Foundation and Christian Union.

information

For more information, email the Executive Director at april.koh@yale.edu.

inside λόγος

winter 2011

a word from the wise A Head Without a Body? The Response of Christology Applied | 4

Rev. Preston Graham

on topic

focus The Four Walls of Freedom: Organized Religion and the Happy Life | 14

Comparative Ethics | 7 Markus Boesl (TD ’14) Dancing for God | 9 Baibing Chen The Failures of Religious Tolerance: A Closer Look | 10 Benjamin Wilson (CC ’14) Worship: An Accessory or the Identity of Christianity? | 12 Iyob Gebremarium (JE ’14) Is Church Necessary?: Asking the Campus | 16 Logos Staff

Eduardo Andino (TC ’13)

reflections Faith and Fiction| 20 Steven Kim (BK ’12)

A New Song| 22 Carter Reese (SY ’13)

Many Paths | 23 Andy Helson (TD ’14)

As He Sees Them | 24 Julian Reid (MC ’13)

The Problem of Evil: A Perspective from J.K. Rowling and the Bible | 26 Benjamin Robbins (SY ’12)

The Hood Life, the Good Life: Reflections from Detroit | 28 Dan Geoffrion (DC ’10)

Leavetaking | 30 λ April Koh (TD ’14)

the logos 3

Is The Church Necessary?

Is A Head Without A Body? The Response of Christology applied! REV. PRESTON GRAHAM

The Unorganized Church I am a pastor. If you are half the cynic that I am, you may be thinking, “So I’m asked to trust the perspective of a pastor whose very livelihood is dependent upon the institutional church?” Fair enough! But here is the thing: I wasn’t always so invested in the organized church. For about twelve years after becoming a Christian, if ever I did attend a church that recited the Apostles’ Creed as to include that curious phrase “I believe in the one holy

man-made system [but] people and their lives, a living breathing community of all those who love me, not buildings and programs.” In short, “it’s all about relationships and simply sharing life.” And then, as to send shock waves through every pastor and church person who ever devoted time and resources to an institutional church, Young’s Jesus asserts: “I don’t create institutions—never have, never will… that’s an occupation for those who want to play God.” I was there myself. We all know and lament that sometimes, for good reasons, many have given up on the organized church.

informed by a careful reading of Christian scriptures, and more an uncritical reflection of post-enlightenment Americana itself (e.g. individualism, subjectivism, egalitarianism). It is my contention here that many of the problems of the church that engender disillusionment are less about the church being too “organized” or “institutional” and more a problem of it not being organized enough. How so you ask? I want to suggest that it all begins with a Biblical analysis of Christology applied.

Many of the problems of the church that engender disillusionment are more a problem of it not being organized enough. Catholic church,” I would defiantly tighten my lips and remain silent every time. I would have readily agreed with the perspective of recent titles like Herbert Hoefer’s Churchless Christianity, Frank Viola and George Barna’s Pagan Christianity: Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices (e.g. “organized” church as an expression of paganism!), and so forth. All these books understand “church” to mean something along the lines of a spontaneous community of Christian believers in fellowship together with Christ. I would have readily applauded the perspective popularized by William P. Young’s The Shack when his fictitious Jesus explains that the church is not an “institution” or “a

the logos

Church hypocrisy, self-righteous moralism, and worst of all, irrelevance all makes for a cynical perspective. That being said – and again for the sake of full disclosure – I now consider myself part of an emerging group of people who consider all this unorganization thinking to be “old school” or even the “new traditional.” I would trace the unorganized religion thing back to at least the mid-to-late 19th century (cf. Nathan Hatch’s The Democratization of American Christianity or George Marsden’s The Evangelical Mind and the New School Presbyterian Experience). These studies suggest that the defining characteristics of the unorganization movement might be less

Christology Applied in Scripture To begin, in Colossians, Paul speaks of his hope that “in everything he [Christ] might have the supremacy in everything.” The context is Paul’s teaching about Christ as “the head of the body, the church” (Colossians 1:18). Paul also writes about his desire for “the fullness of him who fills all in all.” Would it startle us if this fullness were located in, as Paul continues, “the church, which is his body” (Ephesians 1:22-23 ESV)? These passages demonstrate Christology applied: we can’t have Christ as our head if we don’t have Christ fleshed out, in, with, and through his body, the church! Stated more

crassly, would any of us desire a decapitated Christ or decorpulated Christ? Can a person have Christ as “head” without being a member of Christ’s “body”? We’ll return to these questions. But first, we should briefly review the fundamentals of an orthodox Christology. The ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in the mid-400’s sought to depict the mystery of Christ’s divinity in relation to his humanity. The council stated that Christ’s two natures are at once “distinct but never separate.” One of the passages that informed this creed was John’s introduction of Christ in John 1:14: “The Word [Christ’s Divinity] became flesh [Christ’s humanity] and made his dwelling among us [Greek: tabernacled among us].” John’s gospel then carefully crafts Christology into the theme of Christ as our temple. For instance, in just the second chapter, we hear Jesus say things like, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days” (John 2:1920). Almost a third of John’s gospel (starting in John 14) focuses on Christ’s preparing the disciples for his ascension ministry as related to our present age. In this ministry, Christ tells his disciples they will do “greater works […] because I am going to the Father” (John 14:12). Later, when Mary clings to Christ’s resurrected body, Christ gently rebukes, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended […] go to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father’” (John 20:17). John was writing to Jewish Christians who were suffering under growing persecution and feeling “homeless” with the destruction of the temple in AD 70. John’s message was clear: you are not without the temple. Christ is still with you–not abstractly as an idea but actually as your temple. This temple is not a temple built by hands but rather one mediated in, with, and through believers through spiritual union with Christ by the Holy Spirit. Christ continues, “As the father has sent me, so I send you [plural]” (John 20:21). As God sent Christ as temple (John 1:14), Christ also sent the apostles, who would be charged with founding the church built with Christ as the cornerstone. This church would again be an expression of the word (divine) that became flesh (human) in order to dwell (tabernacle) among us today! This, then, is the beginning of an orthodox Christology applied, and how we are to experience the fullness of Christ who fills all in all.

The Church as the Body of Christ Back to our original passages concerning the church as Christ’s body. Paul works out his Christology applied to the necessity of the church; that is, the human community of the church, distinct from Christ as the divine head but enlivened by the Holy Spirit, is now the very mediatory “flesh (or body) of Christ” on earth! Augustine, a theologian of the fifth century, writes, “The Word was made flesh, and tabernacled among us; to that flesh is joined the church, and there is made the total Christ, head and body” (St. Augustine, On the Epistle of John). In the next chapter of Ephesians, Paul

The human community of the church is not the very mediatory body of Christ on earth! describes the church as the “household” of God, “a holy temple in the Lord,” and even “a dwelling” in which God lives (Ephesians 2:1922). He makes the same point in I Corinthians 3: “Don’t you know,” he asks, “that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in your [plural] midst?” It is easy to miss in this translation, as English lacks a plural form of “you”. But in the Greek, Paul repeatedly admonishes a plurality of people: a group–that is, a church. As noted by Richard Hayes, “To read this last sentence [in Corinthians 3] as though it spoke of the Spirit dwelling in the body of the individual Christian would be to miss the force of Paul’s audacious metaphor: the apostlically founded community takes the place of the Jerusalem temple as the place where the

glory of God resides” (Eccesiology and Ethics in I Corinthians).

The organized church Now, the only thing left is to define this “church” as more than a spontaneous gathering, but as a community that is carefully organized by Christ’s design in both faith and practice. Has there ever been a time in redemptive history when “doing what is right in your own eyes” was considered virtuous? Paul describes the church as a community “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord” (Ephesians 2:20-21). In other words, there is an architectural “design” for the church: the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ as cornerstone. The foundation will include such things as warnings about neglecting to assemble together (cf. Hebrews 10:25) and even instructions about what day to assemble (cf. Revelation 1:10, Acts 20:7). It will tell us what we are to do when we meet together. For example, the standard four elements of worship in Acts 2:42 include: (1) devotion to the apostles’ teaching, (2) fellowship, (3) the breaking of bread, and (4) prayers. Sounds like organization. Likewise, Paul exhorts Timothy, a first generation pastor-church planter, to “follow the pattern of sound words that you have heard from me” (II Timothy 1:13, RSV). Accordingly, Timothy might know how “people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household”, which is the “church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth” (I Timothy 3:14-15). Paul’s instructions to Timothy cover such topics as appointing leaders and ordination (I Timothy 3), worship (I Timothy 2), and doctrine (I Timothy 1), all of which were worked out in an assembled context. Again: sounds like organization.

The Church designed by Christ What, then, are the major characteristics of apostolic design with Christ as the cornerstone? A general study of the apostolic foundation reveals at least five major characteristics of a “Total Christ” Church: 1. A Gospel (Grace) Centered Church: (cf. Ephesians 2:1-10): The Church designed by Christ is set free from the fear of condem-

the logos 5

nation or rejection both from God and one another because of the transformative grace of the gospel. Christian assurance comes from Christ and his moral performance. Subsequently, we love and do good works– because we have first been loved (I John 4:19). 2. A Missional Church (cf. John 20:21, Matthew 28, Romans 1:16-7, 15:20): The church designed by Christ will see itself as existing for the sake of God’s glory in Christ in every culture and place, as per the great commission (Matthew 8:16). But more than this, the church, by just being “Total Christ” as by his design, is missional by her very nature. Evangelism and conversion, then, become more participational and not just proclamational. Let the church be the church–and that itself will be evangelistic.

Paul’s instructions cover appointments, worship, and doctrine worked out in an assembled context. Sounds like organization. 6

the logos

3. The Faith Confessing Church (cf. I Timothy 3:15, Colossians 3:16, Acts 17:2, 20:27): The Church designed by Christ is not united and defined by a shared political, sociocultural or economic status, but by sharing in a confession of faith together. The faith confessing church participates in expositional preaching and theological study. 4. The Sacramental Church (cf. Acts 2:37, Hebrews 12:22, I Corinthinans 11): The Church designed by Christ will see itself as joining with the church of heaven into a gathering of Christ’s presence for the glory of God. God is in, with, and through Christ’s sacramental advent by the Holy Spirit to make it the very temple-church of God. A sacrament church understands the sacraments as being more than a sign, but also a seal wherein there is ordinarily a spiritual cause and effect relation between the sign itself (water, bread/wine) and the things signified (Baptism: engrafting into Christ; Lord’s Supper: perseverance and renewing). 5. The Shepherding Church (cf. I Peter 5, Hebrews 13:7,13, I Timothy 3): The Church designed by Christ will take grace-centered shepherding to express the doctrine of grace in a way that is accountable to and regulated by the apostolic foundation itself. Shepherd elders and pastors are themselves under the authority of the church.

In conclusion, the church that stands upon the designing foundation of the apostles with Christ as the cornerstone is necessary since the church is the very temple-presence of Christ today under His ascension ministry. We can’t have Christ as our head without belonging and participating in the carefully “organized” or “fleshed out” body of Christ. The church as such is essential insofar as experiencing “total Christ” or “the fullness of him who fills all in all.” This is not a new idea. The church, by design, is Christology applied. In the words of yet another ancient pastor, who compares the church to a mother: “For from her womb we are born, by her milk we are nourished, by her spirit we are animated […] Whoever is separated from the Church […] is separated from the promises to the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ […] He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother…” (Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage). Rev. Preston Graham is the senior pastor at Christ Presbyterian Church in New Haven.

on topic

Com par ativ e E thics

MARKUS BOESL

The task of comparing the ethical systems of the world religions is herculean at best. In order to treat the nuances of cultural and sociological factors inherent in these codes completely and fairly, one would require a vast amount of space and years of study. Even then, religions would be complicated things comprised not of a series of principle but people. For example, the Mormon church condoned polygamy until 1890, the Catholic Church’s teaching on contraception is coming under recension, Hinduism describes itself as a religion of pluralities. The factors in these decisions are tremendously complicated. So here, I do not want to focus on a comprehensive discussion of the nuances of various religious systems. Even attempting to elucidate the different ethical trajectories between the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Bahai, etc) is tremendously complicated, much less tackling, in addition, non-monotheistic religions (Buddhism, Hinduism etc.) I aim to examine the motivation to ethical and moral actions various religions inspire in their adherents. I aim to show that the vast majority of religions view “good works” as the means by which we (1) obtain God’s approval, which usually translates into a forbearance of eternal punishment, or (2) become God (or gods). Every religious system has some conception of what it means to live morally. This can be shown by the prevalence of the

Golden Rule motif that runs nearly ubiquitously through the world religions. Different cultural formulations of the motif exist, but overall, it can be found nearly everywhere.

ter for Conversion to Judaism puts it very succinctly: “Judaism is a faith of good deeds not of forced creeds.” Islam is also very focused on the role of

There is this idea that each religion has a sense of what it means to act morally: Do unto others what you would have them do to you. For the moment, I do not want to consider the various methods religions use to get to this point. Rather, I point only to the fact that there is some sort of moral system to which most religious (and non-religious) people would claim to adhere. I would like to sketch out a sense of how Christianity differs from virtually all world religions in terms of the motivation for obedience it inspires in its adherents. Let’s take Judaism. In Judaism, man reaches peace with God through the keeping of the law. Judaism denies the existence of original sin (Sanders). It is thus through the efforts of each person in keeping the Mitzvah from which salvation comes. Judaism has no conception of the idea of salvation by faith (Zeitlin). The Cen-

end-of-days judgement. Islam holds that “human beings are not fallen,” and that they can achieve their salvation (Reinhart). It is this hope that motivates the adherence of adherents. Mashuq bin Ally writes: “Judgement Day provides incentive for all believers to act in accordance with the teachings of Islam, in the hope that they may achieve salvation.” The Quran states, of Allah’s posture towards the believing: “That He may reward those who believe and do righteous deeds. Those will have forgiveness and noble provision” (Surat Saba 34:4). Moral responsibility, writes Reinhart, “is the individual’s. It is she or he that will be judged for acts done and undone” (Reinhart). It would seem that the criteria upon which God judges are the actions of the person before him. The degree to which the Muslim is able to fulfill the divine trust is to be accounted for on the day of judgement; one day he or she will die and will have to stand before the divine court of justice, where no special pleading will avail” (Ally). Hinduism has a very different motivation behind moral action. One of the nine beliefs of the polymorphous entity of Hinduism states that karma is how each individual creates his own destiny (Himalay Academy). Thus, as each individual’s action brings a certain kind of karma, ethical behavior is moti-

Christianity rests upon the supposition that man can do nothing to make himself amenable to God, to make himself worthy of communion with God.

the logos 7

on topic vated by a sense of avoiding bad karma and eventually, through various stages of reincarnation, achieving some kind of higher, more godly stature. Nearly every other religion in the world has one of these motivations for ethical action: the avoidance of punishment, peace and approval by God or the arrival at some kind of higher consciousness or more godly stature. Christianity, however, stands unique in its motivation for ethical action. Unlike every other religious system in the world, Christianity demands proper behavior from its adherents, not so that they may please their God, but in response to what he has accomplished

“Without faith,” writes the author of Hebrews, “it is impossible to please God.” Thus, according Trevor Shannon, “it is important to understand that for Christians, living a good life or doing what is right is not a way of winning God’s approval” (Shannon, 175). Christians also take the holiness of God very seriously. Christianity understands God as a holy being, completely perfect and unblemished (I Peter 1:15-16). We can then see, between mankind and its creator, a tremendous chasm impossible for man to traverse alone. Christians accept that they have been saved by grace, that is, by receiving a reward they do not deserve — the

credible picture of this can be found in the book of Revelation. John has a vision of thousands of people wearing white robes, who “have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb” (Revelation 7:14). It is by the blood of the Lamb, the payment of Jesus Christ, which was death on the Cross, that the Christian is able to be made pure. “This is not from yourselves,” writes Paul. “It is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9). Christianity holds that it is only by the tremendous and terrible mercy of God through the death of Christ that we are able to stand before him, purified. All other striving to be

“But it is not the good deeds and moral, ethical action that bring man to God.” for them. Christianity rests upon the supposition that man can do nothing to make himself amenable to God, to make himself worthy of communion with God. Christianity emphasizes the depravity of mankind, in the sense that man is incapable of bridging the gap that exists between him and his maker as a result of sin. Man’s sin has created a gap between himself and God (Rom 3:23). Man can do nothing to bring himself into closer communion with God; it is God who must reach down, by sending his Jesus Christ (John 3:16, I John 4:14), and initiate contact. Our deeds in attempting to fulfill the law are worthless (Isaiah 64:6). The author of Hebrews argues that “without faith, it is impossible to please God” (Hebrews 11:6). We are unable to keep the law, the moral code, at all. “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it”(James 2:10). The law was given so that we would understand our own sinfulness. The law was given, according to Paul, so that trespass might abound. It is therefore impossible for man to, of his own strength, gain the acceptance and approval of God. He is under condemnation and wrath as a result of his sin. He can do nothing to change this scenario. All his acts that conform with morality are empty, done out of sin.

the logos

forgiveness of sins. Christians then are constrained to act morally, not because they are trying to avoid punishment, attain their salvation, gain God’s approval, or even live better. They act morally because this is an outworking of a redemptive relationship with God. They act morally because their faith motivates them (James 1). Their faith is incarnated in good deeds and moral action. But it is not the good deeds and moral, ethical action that bring man to God. On the contrary, these result from a posture of faith. It is only through the condescension of God that we know what we ought to do, and only through His power that we are able to accomplish it. Ethical action is not a means by which one gets to God or becomes god, it is the outpouring of the love He has shown his people onto others so that they may come to know that tremendous love. An in-

pure, to wash our own robes, is in vain. Markus is a sophomore philosophy major in Timothy Dwight.

Want to grow in your faith without losing your mind?

We are a diverse community of Christians in the heart of New Haven who love God, his Word, and our neighbors. Everyone is welcome.

Sundays 10am & 6:30pm 630 State St. (corner of Grove St.) www.trinity-baptist.org

Baibing Chen The lights dimmed. I carried the wooden chair to the center of the Off-Broadway Theater stage, placed my Bible beside the chair, returned behind the curtains again, prayed my last prayers, and yelled “throwback!” That was the cue for starting a dance piece during the 20th Anniversary Show of Rhythmic Blue, a hip-hop dance company at Yale. Keyshia Cole’s “Fallin’ Out” began to play from the speakers as I walked as a silhouette against the red background towards my stage “girlfriend.” Memories then came rushing back. Only months prior to the RB spring 2011 semester show, I was in a very difficult time of my life where I just ended a long-term relationship with my then girlfriend. For those who have been in long-term relationships, I’m sure you can all empathize with me and understand that breaking up is a painful experience. However, God had been more than faithful and was teaching me great things through that heartbreaking experience. As a result, I got the idea to show God’s faithfulness in my life through a dance piece. As I

started to choreograph for the dance, doubts came rushing into my mind. I was afraid of what other members of RB or the audience might think when I openly share my faith on a public stage. What if people become offended by the dance? What if others won’t like me anymore because I’m a Christian? These were questions that only focused on myself and ignored the power of the One who gave me my talents in the first place. For many times during the spring semester, I thought of changing my dance piece into a normal couples dance. As I was searching for songs to choreograph for my piece, I came across the song “We Need You” by the Christian hip-hop artist JR. After watching Keone Madrid’s rendition of the song, I was inspired to choreograph a piece that began by telling the story of my breakup and ended with how God’s grace and mercy taught me that I cannot find satisfaction in worldly relationships, but in Him alone. As “Fallin’ Out” and the breakup scene came to an end simultaneously, the other dancers walked off stage and I gradually approached the chair at the middle of the stage, crestfallen. But a glimpse of

hope appeared on my face when I saw the Bible lying beside the chair. I picked it up and opened it to Psalm 23, and my voice came on the speakers and read out loud to the audience the verses that carried me through many dark periods in my life. After each of our five performances last semester, audiences would come up to me to congratulate me on an inspiring piece. Although I appreciated each of those compliments, I knew that it was not I, but God, that deserved all the glory. I was most touched when one of my best friends, who was not a Christian, came up and told me: “I cried every time I saw your dance.” “We Need You” played on as OBT was in almost complete darkness. Light streamed from the small flashlights that we were holding, which represented God’s light that shines through the darkness of the world. As the dance came to a close, we lifted our heads to the Heavens. Blackout. Baibing is in his second year at the School of Public Health.

the logos 9

on topic

The Failures of Religious Tolerance: A Closer Look

BENJAMIN WILSON When Hobbes proposes “the great separation,” he advocates for a great leviathan to settle all religious disputes and prevent discrimination or intolerance between religious sects. As a rebuttal, John Locke’s classical liberalism posits that society should embrace the principle of tolerance to prevent social conflict. Unfortunately, true tolerance is not achievable. Champions of Locke’s tolerance overlook a contradiction in his A Letter Concerning Tradition and base their arguments on the will of the secular rationalist society, something that ultimately falls short of its name. Locke promptly gets to the heart of the issue when he acknowledges that “every church is orthodox to itself; to others, erroneous or heretical” in A Letter Concerning Toleration. So-

arise between the two. The same argument can, naturally, be extended to different religions that espouse different beliefs. Toleration intuitively seems like the best option to remove social conflicts, but it conflates the decisions on policy issues that the appointment of a leviathan so easily and arbitrarily dodged. The problem with the concept of tolerance is that it renders religion meaningless and cannot coexist with true religion. Because true toleration necessitates respect, toleration of any other faith would place it as equal to one’s own. As soon as differing religions can be viewed as equal, the validity of the religion is undermined and the religion becomes an arbitrary belief. Furthermore, the fact that choice is an option between religions undermines all religions additionally because reli-

elytizing forces the disciples to see the invalidity of another faith; therefore, it undermines the respect necessary for true tolerance. Many religious advocates for John Locke’s classical liberalism dodge this assertion by claiming that conversion requires true toleration. In other

As soon as differing religions can be viewed as equal, the validity of the religion is undermined and the religion becomes an arbitrary belief. ciety must, therefore, adopt a principle of tolerance in order to avoid conflict between the very different orthodoxies that arose out of the reformation. It is important to note that Locke is secular to certain religions and not secularist, as he later proves in his condemnation of atheism. The concept of a Hobbesian leviathan is unacceptable to Locke because it places the freedom of individuals in the hands of an arbitrary power. While Hobbes bases his ideology on the innate fear of mankind, Locke bases his postulation on the fear of power being concentrated in a small sector of government. More explicitly, Locke fears the violation of human rights that may occur if political decisions are made by one denomination (e.g. the Roman Catholic persecution of Protestants), and Hobbes fears the contention that could

the logos

gion becomes a preference. True tolerance allows critical decisions like religion to be decided upon these preferences, or feelings, and implicates that the religion was not founded upon absolute truth, because these religious preferences may be inherited culturally and be the results of social constructs. As a part of the absolute truth, most religions require that followers are only members of that religion and pursue the faith wholeheartedly. A true follower of this kind of religion cannot truly tolerate (with a focus on respect) another with a different religious conviction. True belief in the faith—in combination with the other emphases of religion (i.e. making one a better person, love for humanity, etc.)—demands the conversion of unbelievers. This goal of pros-

Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan words, in order to proselytize nonbelievers they must first show respect for their choices. Locke affirms this when he says: “Toleration [is] the chief characteristic mark of the true church,” perhaps overemphasizing the role of acceptance churches need. This is commonplace among the contemporary missionaries, where they focus more on broadcasting their faith by actions than by words. One problem with this passive mission

is syncretism, which invades and dilutes the religion being espoused. This syncretism then

teaching of religion to proselytize others. Locke’s argument is also undermined

tolerance in the political sphere and dichotomized taking orders from the Pope with being

“At the end of the day the greater interest of society becomes a scapegoat that disguises liberalism’s political agenda and ideology at the expense of true tolerance.”

results in a pollution of the faith and makes the nonbeliever, as well as the disciple, lose respect for the religion, unless the disciple’s faith is strongly founded. However, true and full respect includes respect for the religious choices of the individual, and it rejects change in them for any reason. Here, respect requires that the individual’s choices be affirmed as valid and irreparable. Therefore, if true toleration is a goal, conversion has no place, and the individual must deny the fundamental

by history—true tolerance has never been achieved. One of the main planks of liberalism is its imposition of tolerance upon society and its adamant refusal to be close-minded. However, liberalism never fully tolerates all beliefs because some are harmful to society. Consider the idea of human sacrifice. Some past religious beliefs have instructed supporters to sacrifice humans to the gods for blessings. In today’s society, it would be impossible to find any individual that could possibly tolerate this action. To avoid being intolerant, most individuals would protest (justly so) by claiming that individual’s have a right to life and that this sacrifice is an unconstitutional violation of that right. Ultimately, while both of the last statements are generally affirmed as true, these secularists promote their own ideologies and being intolerant of the religious views of others. At the end of the day the greater interest of society becomes a scapegoat that disguises liberalism’s political agenda and ideology at the expense of true tolerance. Despite these flaws, the pursuit of religious tolerance has helped open up many doors. President Kennedy’s speech to Protestant Ministers recognized the importance of

a Roman Catholic. He was able to rationalize tolerance by emphasizing its crucial role in the idea of freedom and the American dream, and reinforced its appeal as the cultural left began to take hold in the 1960’s. Intuitively, one of the strongest reasons for tolerance is in the negatives of intolerance, something that no one is willing to defend. Intolerance is one of the many acts of discrimination in American society today. While racial tolerance radically differs from the tolerance of a philosophy and, consequently, the refusal to tolerate beliefs is much more reasonable than the refusal to tolerate people; the two are often confused. Intolerance in either sense is unacceptable, but the acceptance of an ideology can be an effective substitute for society in lieu of tolerance and respect. While the idealistic, classical liberal ideal of religious tolerance is a necessary underpinning of society in some situations, it ultimately fails the Lockian commonwealth by undermining religion. Locke contradicts himself when he claims that every church has its own orthodoxy and yet we must place our values on the common good that everyone agrees. Furthermore, true tolerance has never been achieved because there are things that, regardless of religious beliefs, do not deserve toleration. Ideology is concealed under the label of tolerance, and it is impossible to separate them. Ultimately, religious tolerance conflicts too much with religion to be a viable option for society. Benjamin is a sophomore political science major in Calhoun.

the logos 11

on topic

WOR S H I P :

An Accessory

IYOB GEBREMARIAM One of the most curious things about modern Christianity is the relatively small importance worship seems to hold in defining it. This is especially true in Protestant denominations. Unlike any religion in the world, evangelical Christianity does not seem to have a clearly defined order of worship in church. One would have difficulty, for example, defining Judaism without considering the orderly observances of the synagogue. Many religions are defined not just by their statements of faith but also by elaborate actions that believers undertake as some form of

tion. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church. If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God. Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the

not seem particularly surprised that the believers of Corinth had been given such gifts. Instead he commands them to use their gifts orderly. This implies that there was a strong presence of the Holy Spirit prevalent in the churches of the time. Paul does not congratulate the Corinthians for the presence of the Holy Spirit in their church. Neither is he surprised by it. It is thus safe to assume that a strong presence of the Spirit in churches was both common and expected in the churches of the time. Why is this rare today? Is it because God is working differently today as some argue, or has it something to do with the worship that takes

Did the apostles not give an objective command on how Christians should worship collectively? More importantly, doesn’t Christian worship define Christianity in essential ways? worship. Contemporary Christianity under-emphasizes orderly church worship so much that there exists almost no outstanding standard for church services on which all Christians unanimously agree. Whatever few orderly worship practices there are, few consider them to be obligatory. Such liberalism is, of course, a direct consequence of the emphasis many Christians put on personal religion. Undoubtedly, one must wonder if the current liberalism in worship is truly scriptural. Did the apostles not give an objective command on how Christians should worship collectively? More importantly, doesn’t Christian worship define Christianity in essential ways? Perhaps one of the first passages of scripture that comes to mind is I Corinthians 14, where Paul gives the congregation of the church of Corinth a detailed instruction on how to worship. The passage is worth quoting: “What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of

instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpreta-

the logos

churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored. Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way” (I Corinthians 14:26-41). It is highly debatable how much of this passage applies exclusively for the Corinth church. Without getting into that debate, we can learn a lot from the passage about the worship of the churches that are contemporary to Paul. Firstly, Paul seems to be addressing a conflict that had arisen as a result of disorderly prophesying and tongue speaking. Paul does

place in churches today? Just a few verses before the quoted passage, Paul tells the church at Corinth to “Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy” (I Corinthians 14:1). This centrality of spiritual gifts in worship is almost completely missing in today’s churches. Paul urges the church to be more instructive in worship. Today the church is entirely instructive. Many churches preach the Gospel, but few pursue eagerly the pouring of the Spirit. The early Churches were marked with the pouring of the Spirit. What drew people to the Church on the day of the Pentecost was not only Peter’s eloquent sermon but the coming of the Spirit that preceded it. It is safe to assume that in the early churches the works of the Holy Spirit were so prevalent that it had become a distinct mark of the Christian churches. If non-believers were to talk of the Christians at the time, they would have undoubtedly singled out the

or the Identity of Christianity? strong presence of a supernatural spirit in their worship services. When Paul met some disciples in Ephesus he asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” (Acts 19:2). Thus the Spirit was a litmus test of a true conversion, a defining factor for early Christianity. Secondly, Paul starts his sentence in I Corinthians 14:33 with “As in all the congregations of the saints […]”, implying the existence of some uniform order in worship in the early church. Now, it is true that the churches at that time were not as numerous as today and probably less diversified. But Paul appears

Christian church looks like. He exhorts in Ephesians 4:4-5: “There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— one Lord, one faith, one baptism…” Is it then justified to say that Christians have full liberty to disregard worship as if it is some superfluous accessory to their faith? Wouldn’t the modern day notion that Christianity and the Church are not the same seem preposterous to Paul? It is interesting to note how many Christian witnesses mention the worship that takes place in their churches as a reason for

“I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.” Ezekiel 36:26 to feel strongly about the conformity of the Corinth church to all the other churches, as he exhorts “…what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored” (I Corinthians 14:37-38). Why was Paul so concerned with uniformity across the churches while at the same time firmly opposing the imposition of laws and cultish observances on top of the gospel? Perhaps Paul recognized early on that the image of the Church was essential to its expansion. Even in the same text he argues: “If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds?” Paul understood early on that the Church, in addition to the gospel, would play the premiere role in defining Christianity as a religion. Its strong worship accompanied by the Spirit, not just its beautiful gospel, would set Christianity apart. And he did not want there to be confusion among nonbelievers as to what an actual

becoming a Christian. A lot of Christians do not consider worship as central to their faith. If asked what Christianity is, it would be interesting to see how many would mention spirit filled worship as a feature of the faith. Shockingly though, Scripture describes Christianity more in terms of the Church and the Spirit than in terms of heaven. In the book of Revelation we see the ultimate goal of it all: the marriage of the Lamb and the Church. What makes the gospel extraordinary is that it does not stop with forgiveness of sins and redemption of souls but continues on to gift the most wretched hearts with the Spirit of the most Holy. As Ezekiel 36:26 famously says “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.” Jesus says regarding the Spirit: “When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me” (John 15:26). While salvation is personal,

the Spirit is a communal reality. As Jesus also says “For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them”(Matthew 18:20). It is thus clear that Christianity is largely defined by the working and moving of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is poured out when believers are gathered together in the name of Jesus as seen repeatedly in the book of Acts. Thus it is not far fetched to conclude that the Church essentially defines Christianity. Christianity is not too different in this aspect from other faiths. The way we worship is part of what we are. It is of great importance therefore for a church to possess the mark of its identity, which is the Holy Spirit. Iyob is a sophomore computer science major in Jonathan Edwards.

the logos 13

focus

The Four Walls o

EDUARDO ANDINO When Thomas Merton entered the Abbey of Our Lady of Gethsemane, the renowned Trappist monastery in Kentucky, he declared that he had entered into “the four walls of my new freedom” (The Seven Storey Mountain). Entering the monastic life means renouncing your own will once and for all, ready to do at every moment of the day for the rest of your life what you are obliged to do by the monastic routine and the abbot of the community. There is no such thing as “my time” any longer, nor is there really “my” anything. A monk must learn to be happy with not even belonging to himself. It may be fair to ask, then, in what sense such a life could possibly be considered liberating. We find ourselves asking a similar question when we discuss organized religion in general. Why accept an organized religion: don’t you want to think for yourself and come to your own conclusions? Why would you bind yourself to do what somebody else tells you? Now, if an organized religion were true it would mean a number of things. First,

a certain extent, God is actively at work during crucial moments in the development of that organized faith, ensuring that in the messiness of human affairs, the authorities of that faith end up making the right decisions on what the faithful will adhere to. Given that an organized religion must operate in time and in human society, some sort of organizational structure would have to emerge to identify the “dwelling place” of that truth, which allows us to identify that we are “in communion” with those who believed that faith before and that we are receiving the authentic revelation, and not some corrupted or incomplete imitation. It will be granted that accepting everything enumerated above requires faith. We can either believe that an orga-

Why accept an organized religion: don’t you want to think for yourself and come to your own conclusions? that at some point, God revealed Himself in some way and left humans with some depositum of divine knowledge from which all necessary knowledge of God emanates. If this were not the case, no human institution could legitimately claim the authority to organize religion and promulgate a normative set of propositions for belief and forms of worship. Given that human beings are finite and imperfect, God would have to provide some way of safeguarding his depositum against error on the part of the humans to whom He entrusted His revelation. This means that, to

the logos

Organized Religion

nized religion is formed legitimately on the foundation of some original depositum fidei and is being guided by God to remain free from error, or we can dismiss it all as propaganda. All claims to religious truth certainly ought to be tested by the best methods of human reasoning available to us, and we should hold fast to what is good and reject what is false. But what emerges when we find a credible organized religion is the relief and happiness of the conviction that God has come to meet humanity to give us a way of life through which we can come to know Him. Placing faith in an organized religion

might seem like a scary option, because of our natural discomfort with claims to absolute truth, especially when they require an “all or nothing” commitment. Atheism is easy in one sense, because it does not bind us to moral convictions or challenge us to live by anything but our own measure. Spiritualism shares the same moral laxity, with the added disadvantage that it does not require us to think hard about the meaning (or lack thereof) of life. When we believe in God but do not believe that He has spoken to us in some definitive way, we do not have to think about why the way of life taught by an organized religion might teach us about human nature and what

fandOur Freedom the Happy Life 2:42). Here we read four elements of the Christian faith to which the faithful adhered. Let us begin with the apostles’ teaching. At His ascension

with what vehemence Paul criticizes the “circumcision party” in his Epistles, those who, in opposition to the decree of the Council, wish to see the Gentile converts following the Law of Moses (Galatians 2:11-14). What we see is most certainly an organized religion. But its decisions are binding not for the sake of control, but for the sake of unity. The goal is that the faithful “may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us” (John 17:21).

The goal of organized religion is to bring society as a whole, working through each individual, to the perfect fulfillment of the goal of religion: To love God, and to love our neighbors as ourselves.

is best for us. But organized religion requires a reshaping of our life to conform to a standard that is not of our own making. The reshaping extends to every area of our life, ranging from our morals and ways of thinking to our forms of worship and inner disposition. An often-overlooked verse in Acts of the Apostles describes the communal life of early Christianity, which even in its earliest days was an organized religion, even though its organizing principles were still in embryonic form. We are told that the first converts to Christianity “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer” (Acts

into heaven, Christ conferred upon the Apostles the mission to baptize all nations and teach them everything that he commanded. He also promised to be with them “to the very end of the age” (Matthew 28:20). The Apostles were given the unique mission of bringing the new Christian faith to the whole world. They had the assurance that Christ would be with them in their mission. If we look back to our earlier comments about organized religion, we see in the Apostles the receivers of the depositum fidei. They have received the faith, and since they are the ones being safeguarded from error (through Christ’s promise) as they pass the faith on to others, they are the authorities on how the faith will develop when questions arise. It is they who decided at the Council of Jerusalem, for example, that the Gentiles would not be bound to follow Jewish laws upon becoming Christians (Acts 15:1-21). It is an official decree for all of Christianity, a decision guided by the Holy Spirit but made in the fray of human affairs and actions. To be “in communion” with the decisions of the Apostles is to remain in the Christian fold, and disagreement is not to be taken lightly. We see

The goal of unity becomes clear in the second feature of the Christian life-fellowship. It is no coincidence that fellowship is listed right after the apostles’ teaching. The Psalms declare, “How good and pleasant it is when brothers live together in unity!” (Psalms 133:1). Organized religions tend to understand how easily small disagreements can tear a community apart, and Saint Paul faced such factional behavior when the Corinthians converts divided themselves into groups based on who had baptized them (1 Corinthians 3:4). It is inevitable that in making binding decisions, organized religions will upset parties to which it did not cater in its decision, but Fellowship implies communal life, which implies willingly making sacrifices, in deference to truth, that are necessary for a harmonious society. Therein the connection between religious authority and a just society becomes clear. Any truly functional human community will require sacrifice and not just individualism on the part of its members. Organized religion might ask us to make personal sacrifices, but they are ultimately for the good of fellowship. Without harmonious relations with our neighbors we can hardly consider ourselves to be living happily. The third element of the Christian life is the breaking of the bread, or the Eucharist. For the early Christians, the breaking of the bread built on the fellowship. Agreeing and being of one accord, faithful to the Apostles’

the logos 15

IS CHURCH The three-word question eludes easy answer. The nature and significance of church has been the topic of historical councils, theological debate, and existential rumination since the church began. The Logos asked students for their thoughts. Here are your answers.

A question like this implies that “church” is a thing that Christians “do.” To reduce “church” to an institution, an exclusive religious club or a Sunday ritual is a pity. Christians don’t “do church,” they are the Church — a community of believers whose foundation and head is Christ. I guess the deeper question is whether a Christian can go it alone. I don’t think it’s easy to grow in faith without having people to guide you, forgive you, rebuke you, love you and serve you, and whom you can love and serve. I’ve been encouraged at Yale by Christians who have recognised the importance of community and reached out to other Christians. I’ve been encouraged by Christians from all over the world who remind me that the Church isn’t limited to a local congregation. The active participation of people has been necessary to my spiritual growth; in that sense, the Church is necessary to its members, just as parts of one body are necessary to each other. Brenda Seah JE ’14

In the purest sense of the word “church” -- as the bride of Christ -- it is necessary. Alex Liu TC ’12 Everything is permissible -- but not everything is beneficial. Amanda Levis ES ’12

the logos

It is easy to fall away as fallible human beings without some form of encouragement or instruction. Given this fallibility, a place for gathering, learning, and encouraging is necessary. Eric Pan PC ‘15

NECESSARY? A Conversation with Shelly Kim PC ‘15 Yalies have so much going on during the week that revolves around us. Church on Sunday is a time we can spend focused on God, praising Him, and not focusing on ourselves. Daniel Yu SY ‘15

Yes!

James Jiang ES ‘15

Is Church necessary?

Christ loved the church. The church is the body of Christ, and Paul talks so much about the church, for example in Acts. Clearly if God spends so much time telling us about the church, it’s important.

So what is “church”? Is it the people or is it the service?

I think it’s all of it. I think the two most important parts of church are teaching and fellowship, and I think both things are essential to a Christian lifestyle.

In the most literal sense, going to church is not necessary to be a Christian. One need only “call on the Name of the Lord” to be saved (Romans 10:13). However, the Bible makes it clear that being a part of a community of believers is something God wants us to do. The Bible urges: “And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds, not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging one another” (Hebrews 10:24-25). Throughout the New Testament the image of the church is used over and over again and the Bible makes it clear that the church is a good thing. It’s also clear that the church denotes a collective body of believers, not just an individual. God not only wants us to serve him, but also to serve him together–united with other believers. Christian Williams TD ’14

Can there be teaching and fellowship without going to church on Sundays?

Sunday is also the Sabbath. But I suppose church could be on Tuesday and it would still be church. And it would still be important.

Is it possible to have salvation without church?

I don’t think church is necessary for salvation, but if salvation is all you’re looking for in Christianity then you’ll be in for quite a surprise.

The views and opinions expressed by students here are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Logos or any member thereof.

the logos 17

focus teaching and coming together to live in harmony, the Christians worshiped and shared a meal together. (Food has entered the equation: we now have the makings of a flourishing culture!) We see the happy society that the Christians built up when they “broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people” (Acts 2:46-47). The coming together for communal worship is the most important part of any organized religion. It is the “Sabbath” during which the faithful come together to remember what their purpose in life is and to share in the rest of God. Finally, we come to prayer. Communal worship binds together the society, but society is composed of individuals. Ultimately, faith depends on belief, which depends on some sort of encounter between each believer and God, the object of worship. The prayer life of each individual is what builds up the community, because it is the source from which the believer draws strength to live the life of faith (in the Christian tradition, this supernaturally infused strength is called grace) and therefore live in harmony with the rest of the believers. The social and communal aspect of faith, in turn, influences the individual’s prayer life by providing the culture, life, ideas, themes, imagery, etc. from which the individual’s prayer life is shaped. Ultimately, then, the goal of organized

the logos

religion is to bring society as a whole, working through each individual, to the perfect fulfillment of the goal of religion: To love God, and to love our neighbors as ourselves.

“Unorganized” faiths might also make claims to best accomplishing these goals, but it is not difficult to see how a religion or spirituality which leaves out any of these elements will fall short of placing human beings in their proper contexts as individuals living with, for, and from other individuals in a society. An overly personal spirituality that does not consider authority or public worship important, for example, has the danger of isolating us

from each other rather than building community. The consequence is not only that we ourselves face the danger of erring from truth by not checking our judgment against a greater standard, but that we fail to be a loving member of the community. If our attitude is that everybody should just pursue what they happen to find best at that time, we cease to care that our fellows might find a true harbor and therefore true rest and happiness. Adhering to an organized religion no doubt requires certain unpopular virtues: the humility to obey and accept teaching, even when our initial inclination is to disagree; willingness to admit that we are incorrect; the patience to accept unpopularity when the tenets of our faith put us in opposition to prevailing social assumptions. But on the other hand, it is not difficult to see why despite such difficulties, we might discover in an organized religion that we are within the “four walls of our freedom.” If we come to see a religion through the lens of faith, to see what it offers in its essence, stripped from the assumptions we might have about it, we discover the joy of humility, the relief in the knowledge that we have been placed in the hands of truth and freed from our own blindness, and that our faith does “not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power” (I Corinthians 2:5). Eduardo is a junior humanities major in Trumbull.

A CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE ON

America’s Role

in the World

January 20-‐22 | Osprey Point Retreat & Conference Center

DR. PETER FEAVER

Professor of Political Science and Public Policy at Duke University

DR. TIMOTHY SHAH

Assoc. Director, The Religious Freedom Project at Georgetown University

DR. WILL INBODEN

Assistant Professor of National Security at the University of Texas

Join us to consider critical foreign policy issues including: America’s evolving role as a global leader; ethical issues faced in Afghanistan, Libya, and China; the promotion of religious liberty; and the Christian call to civic responsibility.

Visit “Events” at academy.ttf.org or call 410.745.4411 | Located 90 minutes from Washington, DC λ

the logos 19

reflections

FAITH A N

D FICTIO

STEPHEN KIM

The relationship between fiction and faith has had its difficult moments. The Index Librorum Prohibitorum was abolished by the Catholic Church only fifty years ago, and there were even recent stories of pastors burning Harry Potter books when the series started skyrocketing in popularity. Clearly the people instituting banned books lists and instigating book burnings believe in the capacity for fiction to corrupt. Curiously, in denouncing fiction’s potentially degrading influence, they are also acknowledging its power. Power, often, is made good or evil based on how it is used, and I wondered in which ways the powers of fiction could be used for good, or for building up a faith rather than tearing it down. To clarify my own thoughts, I decided to talk to others, and I enlisted the aid of several students (undergraduate and graduate) to help me explore this relationship between faith-building and literature. Though much of the criticism of literature is that it can introduce heterodox and he-

retical ideas to the reader, Finola Prendergast, a senior English major, suggests that reading these “heretical” texts may actually prove beneficial for faith. “When we read a work of literature, we enter into the moral universe the author is proposing with the work, and we accept or deny it. In what we accept and what we deny, we learn more about what we believe to be right.” By reading, we come into contact with a system of morality created by the author, and through the course of journeying through the work of fiction, we learn of its implications and consequences. At the end of the work, we can come closer to our own beliefs and convictions by examining our reaction to the work of fiction. Specifically, rejecting the work’s moral universe (whether for intellectual or even emotional reasons) would indicate that something about the work was troublesome, problematic, or even nauseating. Pinpointing exactly what was so distasteful can help clarify one’s own faith. Though we may be tempted then to read only works with familiar moral universes to avoid the tension or disgust that may come from encountering a work with an antithetical one, Finola cautioned against this. Though reading authors like Gerard Manley Hopkins and T.S. Eliot were beneficial to her faith, she mentions that reading

Literature, through its beauty, has the power to decenterthe same decentering that is the beginning of love. 20

the logos λ

authors who were not explicitly Christian or even very much anti-Christian helped develop her own thought. But there is a danger in approaching the work of literature solely as a means to faith building, and Finola implies this. We should enter the moral universe of the author and accept or deny it at the end, rather than entering it with a preconceived notion in the beginning. Megan Eckerle and Tony Domestico, both fifth year graduate students in Yale’s English Department, stressed this point more explicitly. Megan believed that “literature should be a good in and of itself” and that “just because a text is not explicitly in line with what the Catholic Church teaches does not mean there is nothing worthwhile or true or beautiful in it.” Tony agreed: “Literature does not exist for the sake of anything besides literature, though it asks the same types of questions and provokes the same feelings of wonder and estrangement that religion exists to explore.” It is through approaching literature with an open mind that we can truly experience wonder, and it is this very wonder that makes literature immensely helpful to faith-building. Both Tony and Megan commented on literature’s ability to astonish. Channeling the ideas of Iris Murdoch, Megan mentioned that literature, through its beauty, has the power to decenter oneself – the same decentering that is the beginning of love. The work of art becomes what is important, and the self becomes the other. Tony compared this state of wonder at the work of art to the state that is the start of faith. In provoking the same states of love and wonder crucial to faith, literature perhaps can help bring people to faith or help them remember what about it is so remarkable. Some would go so far to say that reading does not only spark or encourage faith, but is an extension of the act of faith itself. Lucas Kwong, a former Yale English major and a fourth year graduate student in Columbia’s English Department, asserts “the very act of

reading, particularly reading fiction, is an act of faith.” By opening a book, one is “giving someone else the benefit of the doubt” and entering into a created world. Lucas warned against reading with suspicion and search for an ideological subtext. Instead, he advocated a hermeneutics of love, which exhorts us to assume an open-mindedness to the lessons a text can teach and a loving demeanor towards the author and other potential readers when critiquing it. The joy of reading comes from encountering people (whether author or characters) that one would never have met and learning from them. It is through observing the lives of the characters, or ideas put into practice, that literature can provide insight into our own lives and our own faiths. By playing out the lived experience of Christian belief (as well as non-Christian belief), literature highlights the “tensions, ambiguities, and

ambivalences” that do come from walking the Christian walk. Pondering these “lived experiences of transcendence” gives us more to work with, and more to learn from in addition to our own lives and the lives of those around us. But to glean all this from literature, we must be charitable. We must approach it with an open mind, putting faith in the work’s ability to teach us something. We must read with a hermeneutics of love. Though it may at first seem preposterous that all works of literature can carry Truth, it makes sense. Books, as created works of God’s created, are still works of the Lord. And if they carry the image of man, they presumably also carry some traces of God’s image. Sometimes, this Truth may only be revealed through a rejection of the premises of the work’s moral universe or through a heartbreaking encounter with

a literary character (my own experience with Ivan in the Brothers Karamazov). It could be through putting the work down and reveling in wonder or shuddering from sublime terror. It seems, though, we learn best from literature when we approach it without an agenda or ulterior motive. All four people I interviewed stressed approaching literature with an open mind and a willingness to learn from the work or the author or the characters. Whether this means gauging moral universes, becoming awestruck by beauty, or living through the beliefs with individual characters, literature ironically only seems to be able to build up faith when it is appreciated as literature itself, not an explicit means for faith-building. Stephen is a senior philosophy and English double major in Berkeley.

In what way could the powers of fiction be used for good, or for building up a faith rather than tearing it down?

the logos 21

reflections God with fellow believers—it is in these moments that I feel God’s presence more acutely and recognize the many blessings in my life. The lyrics are powerful reminders of my faith that I sing to myself as I am walking to class or listening to as I am studying. The prolif-

Music is not to be worshipped but used to worship our God. CARTER REESE David writes in Psalm 33:3, “Sing to Him a new song; play skillfully, and shout for joy.” The Bible commands us to worship God with new songs. The contemporary worship movement has dramatically changed the nature of worship, with drums, guitars, praise bands, and projected lyrics becoming a mainstay in most churches. The new songs are quite different from the hymns that the Church has sung for hundreds of years—they are more repetitive and usually contain just three or four chords in the vein of pop music. This new style of worship has resulted in the formation of an entirely new industry that produces hundreds of albums every year. Some argue that this worship style has made church services more performance-oriented rather than Spirit-filled, and they have a valid point. The definition of worship is “reverent honor paid to God.” Music is not to be worshipped but used to worship our God. Yet it is easy to get caught up in the emotion of the music alone. At my home church, the youth center features a flashy lighting system and services often begin with elaborate videos. The congregation applauds after every song, and many remain silent while the worship leaders sing on stage. This phenomenon can be a detriment to true worship. Worship in song should be praise directed exclusively to God, without distraction and performance that calls attention to the worship leaders rather than to God. The words should have meaning and articulate the desire of our hearts to draw closer to God in our daily lives. It is easy to blame the worship leaders or pastors when worship music becomes entertainment, but some of the responsibility lies

the logos λ

with the congregation as well. Every Christian should have a clear understanding of the definition of worship and participate accordingly. Applause could merely be affirmation of a great singer, or it could be recognition of God’s grace and saving power after experiencing a revelation from God through song.

My heart and mind must be centered on God’s glory for my worship to mean anything. I confess that I often fall into c r i t i qu i n g every mistake a praise band makes or the songs chosen for a service. It is easy to make an idol of my favorite worship songs or worship leaders, like Chris Tomlin or Hillsong, but my heart and mind must be centered on God’s glory for my worship to mean anything. If it is not, my worship could actually be more harmful than not singing any praises. We must be constantly seeking to focus our attention on God and assume the humility of a true worshipper. Although there are warnings to heed when participating in contemporary worship, this new style has been very edifying to my faith. I find no greater joy than in praising

eration of new worship songs is astounding and indicative of God’s work in the Church. Many spiritual truths are being proclaimed in creative new ways with metaphors and imagery that better illustrate God’s majesty and glory for new generations of worshippers. The songs are relevant, many lyrics are verses directly from the Bible, and they point the worshipper’s attention to Christ. Today, we are seeing a powerful new generation of worshippers emerging from the Church. Youth around the world are returning to worship’s simplicity and total focus on God. The Passion Conference in Atlanta draws over 20,000 college students. Their worship, which includes praise and scripture reading, unites students under an anthem that they carry back to their schools to proclaim Christ’s glory. At Passion, students do not just sing the songs – they give their lives to Christ and seek to serve the broken. College students gave over $1.5 million to missions work around the globe. True worship cannot be contained; it leads to the radical transformation of people’s lives and total surrender to the Lord, manifest in service to others. The term “worship” has become synonymous with praise music for many Christians today. Yet worship is simply praising God, whether in prayer and adoration, with traditional hymns and modern praise songs. The individual must find a place to communicate with God and be filled with the Holy Spirit. Many Christians in this new generation have found that contemporary worship services with praise songs facilitate the true worship of God and allow them to grow in their faith. Let us “sing to Him a new song.” Carter is a junior history major in Saybrook.

ANDY HELSON I am not Christian. Then again, I am not any religion, not part of an organized religion, at least. In terms of spiritual beliefs, I believe that humans each have their own individual unique ways of reaching “God” and I do not see one exclusive truth that will lead all of us there; everyone must find his or her own path to this “God”. This does not mean, however, that I have a problem with organized religion. In fact, I find it to be a necessary part of society.

I had questions: Why do people go to church? What drives them to go every week? I was raised a Catholic. Then around middle school, my parents started going to a different Sunday service, at a place called the Unity Church. I never really knew why they all of a sudden switched churches but I think it had something to do with the fact that my older brother had just passed and because a couple of church goers from our previous church had said something along the lines of his atheism causing his untimely death. My parents never really talked about it. The belief that the Unity Church holds is that there is “one God but many paths,” which basically meantsthat all major religions lead to the same being; that deep down, when you look at the core of every religion’s beliefs and moral tenants, the religions are quite similar and we do not have to worry about who is right or wrong since we are all fundamentally right. That sounds weird though, right? That we can all be correct? I mean, what I believe is different from what even my mother and father believe, since they still hold onto some of their Christian beliefs. However, I don’t think that I am any more wrong or right than they are. How can I judge? I am but a man, who can only experience the world through my eyes. I want to see the world through other people’s eyes too, though; I want to learn about what others believe. This is why I started going to Trinity Baptist Church this year.

MANY PATHS

Okay, that’s a lie. I actually started going to Trinity Baptist because my girlfriend at the time had wanted to go, and I had decided to go with her to make her happy. I even tried this “praying to God at night” ritual before going to sleep (got that from her too) and, well, I felt happier. Even if praying to God didn’t change my life, every night I would give thanks for the great things in my life. This would make me remember what is wonderful in life. Over time, my motive for going to church became not just for the sake of my now ex-girlfriend, but to find out what the whole deal of Christianity is about. I had questions: Why do people go to church? What drives them to go every week? I still have not found those answers, but then again, I am not actively searching for them. I am not “accepting the body and soul of Christ,” just merely watching as if I were an outside observer, studying what this group of people does. I am passively observing, analyzing what church is like, what an organized faith is like, how powerful it is, and the potential this faith has both for benevolence and malice. Such strong beliefs capture people’s hearts, such strong faith allows men to be influenced to do amazingly charitable deeds. But such strong beliefs, such unyielding faith can also lead people to commit terrible actions, as history has shown us with the Crusades or the Spanish inquisition. I am also curious about how one piece of literature, this Bible, can influence so many people. It’s inconceivable to me; I want to know more, so I continue going. On one of these Sundays, Co-Pastor Greg Hendrickson preached a sermon that addressed one of my main issues with Christianity. He explained that Jesus is not a savior for some people, but rather one savior for all. I have mentioned before that I believed that different world religions worked for different people. According to Pastor Greg, the human race is not only imperfect, but sinful, wicked, and lost and thus do not deserve to be with God. We must have a savior and that one savior is Jesus. He said that this Christian belief, that Jesus is not a savior for some but the only savior for all, is not arrogant. On the contrary, if one truly believes that God sent His son Jesus as an atoning sacrifice to bridge the gap between the sinful human and their perfect God, this must actually make a person feel humble. He next went on to address the question

of whether such a view is narrow-minded; why other religions can’t work, why one has to follow Christianity. He said that Christ offers salvation through God’s grace, not by any human actions. Christianity differs from other religions because it is the only one that offers salvation through grace, not by works. Humans cannot save themselves. If the path to salvation is different this cannot be a matter of narrow-mindedness. Now, I must admit, this is one of the stronger arguments I have heard about why Christianity is the one true religion. It makes logical sense, especially to one who is already following the faith. It even made sense to me, one who is not following the faith. To me however, the logic is not wrong, but the assumptions upon which this logic is based off are where I find I run into problems. I do not believe we are inherently sinful, wicked, and lost. And should we be wicked, I believe that we do have the potential to overcome our wickedness. But that is my personal belief about Christianity. That’s not what is important. What is important is that there is a place for people who follow Christianity to congregate and share together in spiritual worship. Having a place where people can go to ask questions, to learn about a faith, for followers to reaffirm their beliefs and see those who have experiences just like theirs, is what is important. And I believe that this place of gathering is not exclusively important to those who follow the faith, but also to those who just want to keep their spiritual life on track. Attending any religious gathering allows for a time of reflection of one’s own personal beliefs, whether they are similar to that faith or not. A place of worship is a place we can escape to from our busy lives and allow undivided attention to reflect on the spiritual beliefs we hold. Andy is a sophomore in Timothy Dwight

the logos 23

AS HE SEES THEM But the LORD said to Samuel, “Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart. 1 Samuel 16:7 nied from the African littoral to the Americas, and then stripped of “African” roots, blacks been forced to assimilate into the dominant Frequently, when I inform God-fearing, hegemonic culture of America. Among many older black people back home in Chicago other forms of re-birth, those first Africanthat I have a Americans girlfriend, they Even a blind man can see that race were given usually ask the new names, is still an over-determinant in this following three a new lanquestions, more country. But why is this the case for guage, new or less in this job titles, God’s people? order: What’s her and a new name? Is she a sisreligion. ta [black woman]? ChristianWhere’s she from? ity was first introduced to them as Growing up as a young buck, I never con- a byproduct of their sidered how odd that rationale was coming raping. Against from a Christian. When I had a girlfriend in their will, they high school (Sydney) and was interrogated by were forced to older black people, I felt completely comfort- re-define the able answering that she was black (and Chris- reason they tian, depending on whom I was talking to). were put on But it wasn’t until I got to college and started Earth. And dating this smoove Canadian half-white/half- yet, even Asian girl, Carmen Thunem, and was asked though those same questions did I realize that some- Christianity thing was awry. I started wondering why this was artificontingent of God’s People so often cared cially insemmore what race she was above all other char- inated, at acteristics–namely, her faith, her nationality, some point what she did on campus, etc. Understand- it took root. ably, even a blind man could see that race in Iterations later this country is still an over-determinant, so to it became the some extent I can see why that might still be way of our people a topic of interest in relationships. But why in this country. The is that the case for God’s people? To look at black church this question, I must first consider the history blossomed as the centerpiece of black Ameriof the black church and how blacks came to can culture, providing comfort to the poor Christianity. The black church has been argu- and huddled masses. Our Statue of Liberty, ably just as much about race as it has been if you will. From this pained experience of about the Scriptures. Since rudely accompa- assimilation came the African-American JULIAN REID

the logos λ

worship experience (the institutional “black church”). In part due to the cat o’ nine tails, we learned to Love the Lord. And, to be sure, I’m glad that we did. He is the one True God, and I am a proud servant of His. On January 1, 1863, He heard the cries of His people and convinced the new-age Pharaoh to let His people go (courtesy of our quasi-mosaic sixteenth president, good ol’ Abe)–and so forth. But, even though we clearly loved Him and what He did, that did not shake the fact that our faith came about in a racialized context. Even when we were Christians, we were still second-class citizens in this country (technically up until the 1960s) due to the color of our skin. Unfortunately, the ugliness of racism discolored our views of people too, and many black people within the Fold came to look with disdain upon the white people who were oppressing them. Even though we were Free from chains, we were still manacled to the notion of “white was [not] alright.” So fast forward to today and the black church. Although we’ve progressed as a race and as a nation in race relations and racial equity, the Manacle still persists. What that line of questioning has demonstrated to me is that for many people who look like me, there is still a premium placed on blackness, sometimes seemingly prioritized above Christianity because so often in our history the former outweighed the latter. We were seen as the Negro first, and then a Christian second. For so long, our bonds with other people in this country so often revolved around the color of our skin. Many white Christians (like Jonathan Edwards and Samuel F.B. Morse, after whom JE and Morse are named, respectively) they enslaved and dehumanized blacks as op-

posed to raising up. I argue that we as a community–the black church–have latched onto the notion of blacks being good first because we see black as being an enabler for good when mixed with other factors (e.g. Christianity). However, that notion seems to be more self-centered than God-centered; thus, it is

problematic. There is a famous old-time hymn that simply asserts “I Surrender All.” For black people, I wonder if we truly mean that in all areas of our lives, including our conception of race and the role it plays in the relationships, romantic or otherwise. To be clear,

my aim in this article is not to proclaim that I am holier than thou. Nor do I intend to make light of incidents like that of Emmett Till, in which a black kid was beaten to death for “flirting” with a white woman––such times conditioned many black people to distrust whites. But Jesus explicitly orders us to not only carry out the intent of the Scripture laid out in the epigraph but also to forgive seventy times seven times. I know Jesus’ orders are difficult. But to anybody who wishes to live out the meaning of the creed (including myself), it is imperative to look first to the extent of the soul as opposed to the packaging in which it is wrapped. I am very happy with Carmen and everything that’s come of that, and the beauty of our relationship has grown and developed in ways that only God could have envisaged and sanctioned. Our ways are truly not His ways, and I pray that people’s aversion to putting God first, before our own predilections (e.g., dating out) be surmounted. The next time a Christian asks me questions to get know my girlfriend, how lovely would it be for them to ask me “are we equally yoked?” as opposed to “is she a sista?” Julian is a junior philosophy major in Morse.

Although we’ve progressed as a race and as a nation in race relations and racial equity, the Manacle still persists.

the logos 25

reflections

The Problem of Evil: A Perspective from J.K. Rowling and the Bible

Benjamin Robbins The problem of evil is one of the topics that we have discussed in the Pierson College Seminar, “Christian Theology and Harry Potter,” and I am going to explore how evil is presented in Rowling’s work as well as the Bible. This is what this paper hopes to illuminate, to expand our understanding of the role of culpability and the idea of soul-making, or sanctification as I will demonstrate in the ad-

throughout his adolescent years. Harry does not choose the situation into which he was born, nor do his parents intend for their son to be left alone and vulnerable. Rather, external evil assails the Potter family in the form of Lord Voldemort. Harry also in many ways inherits his father’s sins, which range from a hunger for mischief and a hot temper to his nearly highly risky and nearly lethal spontaneity, as well as a string of enemies, from Snape to Voldemort himself. Harry is by no means

example of co-existence in one being of the evil brought into the world by sin as well as personal, culpable sin. Others view evil as a reality of this world that is used by God for soul-making (or sanctification in my reading of it); this view is supported by both the Bible and Harry Potter. Paul writes in his letter to the Christians in Rome (Romans 8) about how believers face evil and how God uses these experiences to hone and to shape us to be more like Christ.

Harry is a good example of co-existence, in one being, of the evil brought into the world by sin as well as personal, culpable sin. ventures of The Boy Who Lived. I will argue that, though we are culpable for the evil that we perpetrate, God uses evil in the world to sanctify mankind. The evil that Harry faces is meant to prepare him for the final battle with Lord Voldemort. This may be a result of our rejection (through free will) of God’s will for mankind, manifested in each generation as a disposition to sin in all people. In the series, we see Harry born into a world of evil that pre-existed himself. He is born into a loving and idyllic family, but soon evil strikes and he is orphaned and left alone to bear the wrath of a not-quite-vanquished villain

the logos λ

responsible for these different evils, for he is merely born into them. The fatidic determination of his life, however, does not absolve Harry of the consequences of this particular fate; he finds more than his share of trouble and fatal duels as a result. If we deem the pursuit of love and peace, which first involves the defeat of evil that threatens love and peace, to be the ultimate aim in Harry Potter, then we can see in him both his inherited evil as well as his willful perpetration of evil (which includes most notably the near-murder of Sirius Black in Book 3, which was sought in an act of confused retribution). Harry is a good

In Romans 8:18 and 8:28, Paul explains that God will ultimately use the evil that Christians face for some good in the world; therefore, Paul exhorts, Christians must wait and have the faith that God is working even in the presence of evil. Paul contemplates the end of all this suffering in the passage as well: “I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed– And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.”

Paul’s ideas are affirmed in the overarching stor yline of the entire series of Harry Potter. Paul’s ideas are affirmed in the overarching storyline of the entire series of Harry Potter. From the first moment one begins the series, Dumbledore (as the closest character we have to an omniscient or God-like figure in the series) is present; he carefully chooses Harry’s home for Harry’s protection and preparation (though it is hard to understand how Privet Drive could be the best place). In each climactic scene of the first three books,

Dumbledore is present without being present. He allows Harry to discover the function of the Mirror of Erised, which enables Harry to find the Sorcerer’s Stone before Lord Voldemort does in Book 1; Fawkes is summoned by Harry’s loyalty to Dumbledore in Harry’s greatest moment of need in his duel with Tom Riddle in Book 2; and Dumbledore seems knowingly amused when Buckbeak is seen to have escaped when the executioner and Minister of Magic arrive to take his life in Book 3. For the first three books, Dumbledore is in some way providing for Harry. He aids Harry just enough to survive–he does not

hold his hand and shelter him from the evil that he knew the boy would one day have to face in his mortal enemy. Each potentially fatal situation that Harry encounters is not out of Dumbledore’s control; rather, Dumbledore uses each potentially fatal situation to test and prepare Harry for the even greater evils to come. While it cannot be denied that Harry very much gets himself into each of these situations on his own accord, encountering evil and often getting in over his head, Dumbledore and his provisions seem to come too predictably and consistently to be coincidental. All of the evil that Harry faces prepares him for his ultimate battle with Lord Voldemort in Book 7. Had Harry not had all those emotionally, physically, and psychologically painful experiences before what would be his most challenging face-off, Harry arguably would not have been able to ultimately defeat Lord Voldemort at the most crucial moment. The greatest question is whether Dumbledore had known how all this would come to pass and if he could have been intentionally preparing Harry for all that he would face, even after Dumbledore’s death. We could even imagine some higher power than Dumbledore at work–a higher power who prepares our hero to cheat death itself and to conquer evil in order to restore peace by the power of love. There are moments in the series, however, that seemingly cannot be explained by either form of evil. For example, one would wonder how Ginny could be seen as responsible for the evil she perpetrated with Tom Riddle’s diary before she had received the proper training in magic at Hogwarts. Young witches and wizards cannot be held responsible for any evil that they may perpetrate because they do not know any better. Even though she commits numerous reproachable

acts while possessed by Tom, she is not held responsible for that evil, or even for pouring into the diary the way that she did, because she could not have known any better as just an adolescent witch. One is hard-pressed to condemn Ginny for her actions, and neither Dumbledore nor the Ministry condemns or punishes Ginny for endangering herself and other students. It seems, however, that the question of whether Ginny is responsible for these acts is insignificant when compared to the grace that she receives from the authorities at hand as she tries to cope with what she had done. The importance of grace is clear throughout the New Testament; the grace of God is the most necessary component for coping with evil in this life. God commandeers evil in the world in order to sanctify us for His purposes, to make us more like Christ. It is by God’s grace that we are able to face evil and to understand that evil is in fact being used to refine us to be more like God desires for us to be. One view of evil can be seen and understood within the context of the other – the distinction becomes harder to draw than the philosophical analyses of this question would make it appear. I have attempted to show in this article how the purpose of evil in the world and in Harry Potter is not one that can be easily parsed and understood in any sort of arbitrary way. This reality exists in the Bible as well as Harry Potter, and this calls for a more nuanced and perhaps inclusive idea of what exactly evil is supposed to be good for in the world. Benjamin is a senior sociology major in Saybrook.

the logos 27

notes from an alum

The Hood Life, the Good Life: Reflections from Detroit “Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God-this is your spiritual act of worship” (Romans 12:1). DAN GEOFFRION Imagine living on a block where your roommate straps on a gun to go grocery shopping. The week you moved in, vandals burned down your neighbor’s house. 50% of the adults in your city are functionally illiterate. The threeyear-old children of your friends draw abandoned houses when they color. Your friends have their cars stolen, are robbed at gun point, and receive death threats. Welcome to my hood. Welcome to the 48214, one of the poorest zip codes in Detroit. If the American dream is a well paying job, a nice house in the suburbs, 2.2 children, and a white picket fence, statistics would say this zip code is the American nightmare. I don’t belong here. I’m from a 97% white city with the wealthiest zip code in Minnesota. I graduated from Yale with a degree in economics. I work for one of the top tier management consulting firms, with the executives of multibillion corporations. My neighborhood now is a 91% black neighborhood where people are so poor they make half as much as the average household in New Haven earns. I didn’t set out to end up here. I read about Mack Ave Community Church in Detroit on-

the logos λ

line and thought it was way too hood for me. Regardless, I made the trek through abandoned and crumbling buildings that more closely resembled the third world than a major American metropolis. I arrived at a Sunday morning service, fell in love with the community, and have been coming back ever since. In the Bible, Christians are called to take care of the orphans, the widows, the poor, and the needy. Who better describes that in our society than the single mothers and their children in our ghettos? That’s why my church is here. We are trying to bring resources back to our community and love the people that are most overlooked by society. We want our community physically and spiritually transformed. We do a lot. We run a literacy clinic, host classes on healthy cooking on a tight budget, sell vital goods such as fruits, vegetables, socks, and winter hats at a quarter of the regular cost and serve meals. We have built basketball hoops. These practical activities are effective in providing for the basic needs of our neighbors and members. Most importantly, we love on people by building personal relationships with them. We live in our community together: rich and poor, educated and illiterate, white and black. When I first started attending this church, I lived in the suburbs. But then I began to feel that in order to be more involved, I needed to leave this comfort zone and move into the ghetto. I am not a perfect Christian, and living in the hood makes those imperfections repeatedly

evident. When people try to take my things, or when I interact with people who are strung-out and can barely function intellectually, I want to recoil and leave. I have to learn and remind myself that these people to whom society assigns no value are loved by God in the same way that I am loved by Him: unconditionally. God’s love does not depend on my intellect, my accomplishments, or my service. Those traits are the reasons why society has told me I am valuable and I can subconsciously believe that I can earn God’s love through those things. Luckily, through living here, I have come to realize that God’s love is a gift of grace and I’m forced to have to wrestle with what it means to receive unmerited favor. I wake up early on Saturday mornings to serve at one of our corner stores. When a woman who is already drunk at 10 AM tries to lie to me and play me to get more goods, I get mad. Then, I see how I use the same tricks towards God. Since I can explain my sin in more “sophisticated” ways it somehow seems different. What folly! Through service, I learn about my own brokenness. It exposes my flaws, my bad theology, and how generous God’s unconditional love really is. Moreover, it brings me such joy to serve people who are unable to pay me back, and I get a brief taste of God’s joy towards me. The lack of resources helps me understand the treasure of Christ. If you see the poor and have no compassion, I urge you to check your heart and your

If the American dream is a good paying job, a nice house in the suburbs, 2.2 children, and a white picket fence, statistics would say this... is the American nightmare. theology. Learn about some of the structural disadvantages that so many people can’t overcome. Fight to increase justice and opportunity! If you are burdened by the poor, use your intellect to study economics and create policies that go beyond simply giving them a check, which may help temporarily but builds no lasting impact. Think about how to provide skills, resources, and dignity to the poor. Maybe you might become like me and live way below your means to better serve a poor community. Maybe you will start a medical clinic in the Projects, get a law degree to fight for those without power, or start a business in a rougher neighborhood. Caring about the poor is not a luxury for only a few Christians, but a burden that should be on all of our hearts. It’s on our God’s heart. When serving communities in need, it is easy to think that success depends on physical prosperity. When I look at the brokenness in my friends’ lives at Yale, I realize that wealth by

itself is insufficient. If my whole neighborhood actively sought Christ and made disciples but still lived in utter poverty, my church would have succeeded. If my hood became rich and people all went to Ivy League schools, but were as spiritually bankrupt as they are currently financially bankrupt, then we would have failed. I challenge you to consider moving into a neighborhood like mine to serve the powerless. But, even if you don’t live in a physically impoverished area, you are not off the hook! Most Yalies will spend a significant amount of time in spiritually impoverished areas. Do something about it! Fearlessly proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ through your words and your deeds, even at personal sacrifice. Sometimes I feel that the potential loss of popularity, social awkwardness, and effort required to share the gospel with my more privileged friends are more burdensome than some of the dangers I face in my neighborhood. I re-

mind myself, “What does it profit a man to gain the whole world, but lose his soul?” Keep living out your faith boldly and courageously so that lives may be won for Christ. If you are at Yale so that you can live a safe, comfortable life, it may be prudent to consider the lives of our predecessors. Jesus was hated and murdered. All except for one of his disciples were killed for proclaiming the good news. Their lives define success. Live like your savior and engage with the world to transform it, no matter the personal cost. May we all be living sacrifices in all our pursuits. We’d love to have you join us in the ‘hood! Dan was a 2010 economics major in Davenport.

Dan Geoffrion, a 2010 grad, enjoying the annual Harvard-Yale football game. Boola, boola!

the logos 29

reflections APRIL KOH “It’s not necessarily Christianity that I oppose; I just don’t like organized religion.” Cue the churchgoer’s internal—or external—cringe. Perhaps I do not know exactly what it is that is unsettling about hearing those words. Is it that I believe that Christianity is and must be organized? Is it that I do not like to label Christianity as a “religion”? Do I see a contradiction between accepting Christianity and rejecting organized religion? The resistance to “organized religion” is a prevalent sentiment we encounter in today’s world. Where objective truth is stigmatized, proselytizing is socially suicidal, and a comfortably pluralistic worldview is politically correct, organized religion, which standardizes and proclaims a specific and objective truth, does not sit well with our generation. The question of the importance of organized religion is especially pertinent today, with its salient trend of rejecting highly organized institutions. The Occupy Wall Street movement reveals great discontent with Wall Street finance or, more generally, big business. The people demand that the individual be prioritized before the community. What is the role and significance of “organized religion” in Christianity and in Christian life? Is Christianity an organized religion? To what extent is or should Christianity be organized?

L ea v etaking The answers to these questions are variegated, as is apparent from this issue of the Logos. Some separate Christian spirituality from Christian ecclesiology; it is to the latter that some consign the “organized” element of Christianity. Thus, when one poses the question, “Is church necessary?” to people who self-identify as Christian, the replies can be both positive and negative. Here at Logos, there is a consensus that yes, church is necessary; Christianity is indeed an organized religion; and the organized elements of our faith are not only helpful but vital to us as Christians. Though we recognize that the schools of theology as well as the styles of corporate worship that exist under the umbrella of Christianity are diverse, the Logos staff endorses the Nicene Creed as the unifying basis of our faith and ultimate mission. Even the Nicene Creed, a very basic and widespread articulation of the Christian faith, includes a clause on the church: “We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, and look for the resurrection of the dead and the life to come.” There is one Church. Though the interpretation of what “Church” encompasses varies, “holy” implies the Church’s significance, and “apostolic” implies its authority and organization. We must also recognize that the existence of the Nicene Creed was possible through organized efforts—which were, as we believe, supernaturally guided by the Holy Spirit. A popular objection to organized religion is based on historical events. For some, the concept of organized religion evokes images of massacres, wars, and discrimination. Organized religion, they argue, has the capac-

ity to execute schemes of great evil, for fallible, misguided individuals organize religion. Indeed, many deplorable deeds have been done in the name of Christianity or even through the authority vested in organized forms of Christianity. I apologize on behalf of other Christians who have abused their authority or Christianity’s name in advancing movements of bigotry and hatred; however, I believe that these instances should not lead us to wholly reject organization in Christianity but rather lead us to ask, “To what extent and how is or should Christianity be organized?” The answer to this question is more difficult and contentious within the Christian body, for the answer differs quite drastically from denomination to denomination and from church to church. But through tools given to us by God—the Bible and the Holy Spirit—we try to humbly seek answers. Though some Christians hesitate to call Christianity a “religion,” and though the term “religion” does not, in my opinion, fully capture the essence of Christianity, Christianity is ultimately a systematic religion. St. James tells us what Christianity as a religion ultimately means: “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world” (James 1:27). More simply, religion entails manifest horizontal love for our brothers and sisters, as well as our manifest vertical love for God. Yes, Christianity, on a practical level, is and should be organized; yes, Christianity is a religion, but St. James reminds us that at the core of our religion, behind the edifice of hierarchy and order, we have Love— supremely exemplified for us in Christ’s Passion on the cross. April Koh is a sophomore English and sociology double major in Timothy Dwight.

the logos λ

Allegra AD

位

the logos 31

A C A D E M I C E X C E L L E N C E – E F F E C T I V E E VA N G E L I S M – S P I R I T UA L F O R M AT I O N

Spend a year learning in Oxford alongside a faculty of world-class evangelists and cutting-edge theologians including Alister McGrath, Michael Ramsden, Amy Orr-Ewing, John Lennox, Os Guinness and Ravi Zacharias.

The Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics (OCCA)

outreach opportunities. The two requirements are a

For full details of the University of Oxford accredited one-year

is open for applications for its evangelism and apologetics

bachelor’s degree and a passion for sharing the good news of

certificate, see

one-year course which aims to help Christians defend their faith in intellectually robust and culturally relevant ways, blending in-depth Bible study and research with practical

Jesus Christ.

www.theocca.org

The next one year course starts in late September 2012, with an application deadline of 29th January 2012.

NEW for 2012-13: University of Oxford Masters in Theology approved for OCCA students

The OCCA is a partnership between Ravi Zacharias International Ministries and Wycliffe Hall, a Permanent Private Hall of the University of Oxford.

the logos λ

OCCA_YaleAD_v2.indd 1

16/11/2011 20:44