TAUG To An Unknown God: A Journal of Christian Thought at Berkeley
IDENTITY Volume 12 | Issue 1 | Spring 2019
4
LETTER FROM THE EDITOR
5
MASTHEAD
6
PHOTOS Stephany Su
8
WHAT IS GOD’S PERSONALITY TYPE? Emily Kinnaman
21
THE UNIQUENESS OF DIGNITY Simon Kuang
2 TAUG
11
IDENTITY IDEOLOGIES Melodie Deisher
24
TESTIMONY Hope Balatan
14
18
EVERYTHING ELSE THROWN IN: C.S. LEWIS ON IDENTITY
IMAGO DEI AND THE GLORY OF GOD
Kara Anderson
Joseph Rodriguez
26
ME, SALTED
27
ARTWORK CREDIT
Lily Li TAUG
3
Dear reader, “Be yourself ”—this counsel is standard fare these days. I find that when you approach the matter meticulously, pinning down the precise content of “yourself ” is markedly more elusive than expected. What am I? Some will answer that I am nothing more than the composition of my free choices; others, that I am pure product of my environment; yet others, that I am a blend of the two, or even something else. We need to occupy ourselves with questions like these. For as soon as we begin to grasp the “what?” of our existence, the “why?” encroaches. We need to understand ourselves in order to live meaningful, virtuous lives. In order to treat others with fairness and respect, we have to understand them as well. The Christian frame of reference does not stifle this investigation, but sharpens it. What is man? He is “a little lower than the heavenly beings” (Ps. 8 English Standard Version), even at times “a worm and not a man” (Ps. 22). Yet crowned “with glory and honor” (Ps. 8), even like “gods” (Ps. 82). Indeed, the character of Whitman’s song was right! “I am large, I contain multitudes.” I am too much for even myself! Exactly one man has traversed in utter detail what it means to be human. He is one who, a stranger to his own creation, visited Earth for a short while some two thousand years ago. He knows fullness and hunger, and friendship and betrayal, and glory and shame, and the bitterness of death and the sweetness of life eternal. Yes, Jesus Christ is king of kings and lord of lords, and he is also man of men! He is our past and present and future. Though we hardly comprehend ourselves, he comprehends us and bestows us comprehension of him. This semester, the contributors to TAUG have applied themselves to essays, art, poetry, and layout in order to show us glimpses of what it means to be a person. Will this journal teach you how to “be yourself,” and make the old platitude good once and for all? I cannot say for certain. But it has been of great use to me, and a Christian hopes much. With gratitude and barely-tempered zeal,
“Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you.” —Acts 17:23 Editor-in-Chief Simon Kuang Executive Editor Emily Kinnaman Executive Designer Harmonie Lau Business Manager Raul Montellano
Simon Kuang
Associate Editors Calvin Han Cameron Opartkiettikul Cynthia Hsu David Chen Kara Anderson Social Media Abby Zhang
Associate Designers Andrea Chau Crystal Chang David Chen Lily Li Michelle Chan Stephany Su Business Abby Zhang
Social Media Chair Michelle Chan
To An Unknown God is not affiliated with any church or any religious group. Opinions expressed in articles do not necessarily represent those of the editors. We are completely student-run and funded partly by the student body as an ASUC-sponsered student publication. Funding is also provided through individual donations. Distribution is free while supplies last. To contact us, please email us at taug@berkeley.edu. Visit us at unknowngodjournal.com.
*Not photographed: Abby Zhang, Andrea Chau, Calvin Han, Crystal Chang, Michelle Chan
4 TAUG
TAUG
5
Emptiness
PHOTOS STEPHANY SU
As a Christian living in the secular world while trying to stay strong with my faith, it can be hard to live through both sides of this world. We can be so troubled when school life gets in the way of everything else we want to do to the point where we push God away, thinking that we can handle things without Him. We are left with emptiness as we struggle to find Him through prayer and scripture. Even among the stress and emptiness that I felt from school work, this verse helped me persevere through stressful times: “Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.” James 1:2-4
Decisions There are many trivial things that influence our lives though decision making whether it is what college to go to, what to eat for lunch, or whether or not to go to that frat party tonight with your roomates. Often times I don’t think about God when making these decisions. We think about what will benefit us the most, but to later on find out that it probably wasn’t the best choice because God had another plan for us; an even better one.
Stephany is a first year Political Economics major and Chinese minor. She enjoys knitting, jewelry making, and hikes on a sunny day.
6 TAUG
TAUG
7
WORDS EMILY KINNAMAN
W
P
h
a
i
s
GOD’S
e
r
s
o
T y
8 TAUG
t
“A
n
p
a
e
l
?
i
t
y
t least I know that when I get to heaven I a person’s identity: astrolThus, people might be grouped together as “the can ask God what my Enneagram type is,” ogy or Freudian psychoasame” because they share the traits which the speciflmy friend sighed, resigned after a lengthy nalysis, to name a few. But ic personality tests regards as important; conversely, search through the Internet. Somehow, amidst this is not just a modern there must be traits left out which might further the variety within the Enneagram, she wasn’t phenomenon; for thousands differentiate people. This simplifying tendency at able to pinpoint herself; nothing fit just right. of years, humans have sought best does not account for the vast range of diverThe Enneagram, a personality test with nine to understand what defines sity that is observable among people; at worst, primary types, has grown in popularity in rethem and others. In the 4th cenit chooses traits arbitrarily and then establishcent years. Each type can be arranged in a circle tury BCE, Hippocrates theorized es categories which can only be more arbitrary. with lines cutting across, represent directions of four humors, combinations of wet/ Defining traits, and by extension personality, integration and disintegration (basically, a perdry and hot/cold; imbalances in the then is something of a hand-wavy practice. Just son can take on characteristics of another type humors had implications for medthink about any characteristic: smart, kind, inwhen they are acting in healthy or unhealthy ical treatment as well as personality. troverted. Can a trait really be called the same ways). Each type embodies a basic fear and This is not to say that the concept thing if it shows itself differently in some peodesire; they exhibit certain characteristics of personality as we know it in the west ple? How much variation can there be within and modes of thinking which inform how today has always existed. In fact, the idea a trait for it to still be classified as the same they interact with the world. All this might of personality in its familiar form has roots thing? Are we looking at thought patterns seem terribly complicated, and really it’s in the development of modern psychology or behavior? These questions are difficult to only scratching the surface of the comanswer, and will vary based on the person plexity of the whole Enneagram system. answering them. It doesn’t take much life There are wings and subtypes which allows “Personality tests experience, however, to realize that we are for gradation within a particular type. not all the same; people think and act very represent a longing This system functions to attempt to differently from one another. The trouble for an understanding explain a person’s emotions, motivations, is in defining these differences, because as of oneself which is and behaviors by creating an overara human being we have an inherent bias; more than superficial, ching, cohesive narrative of a person’s we are limited by the capacity of our and which is tied to a identity. For instance, Type Two fears own perception and thinking abilities. being unworthy of love; they want to bigger story. But these For a moment, I will turn to a be loved. The Enneagram posits—inproblem within theology, which is that personality tests can’t deed, seems to promise—that Twos it attempts to describe the immaterianswer why throughout will, in some capacity, nearly always al—the divine—using the best tools histor y, humans have think and behave in ways that correavailable, which are constructions decared to think about late to their desire for love; they will signed by human intellect. The divine often be empathetic, sincere, and car- p e r s o n a l i t y a n d i d e n t i t y by definition is transcendent of material ing toward others (when at their best). in the first place.” things, and yet human beings have no It’s appealing: the notion that the story other way to describe the divine except of you as an individual has, in a way, althrough language, and more specificalready been written. There is freedom to dein the 20th century. Carl Jung, who creat- ly language that refers to uniquely human fine oneself within a type as well as security ed analytic psychology, discussed the idea concepts: God as a Father, for example. The in the promise of a better understanding of of individuation, where a person grows Scripture bursts with examples of anthrooneself. And it’s a cohesive view of the world: and develops into their personality. His pomorphisms, for example in the Psalms: despite the variation possible within the sysdescriptions of certain traits also laid tem, there must, by definition, be simplificathe foundation for the Myers-Briggs “The“The LordLord is myis shepherd; my shepherd; tion and reduction if there are fewer types than test, is organized based on four traits I haveI have all that all Ithat need. I need. there are people in the world. (This is of course which Jung theorized to be the most He lets Heme letsrest meinrest green in green meadows; meadows; assuming that each person is unique, which I will important and influential in human He leads He me leads besides me besides peaceful peaceful streams. streams. assume is true based on genetics and epigenetics.) thought and behavior: extroverHe renews He renews my strength. my strength. If the Enneagram seems unimportant—not sion/introversion, intuition/sensHe guides He guides me along me right alongpaths, right paths, 1 even a blip in the large picture of the history of ing, feeling/thinking, judging/ Bringing honor Bringing to his honor name.” to his name.”1 humanity—it is, relatively speaking. But the En- perceiving. Less clearly, but in 1 Psalm 23:1-3 neagram itself is only one test in the ever-growing a similar vein, the Enneagram God is not a human being, and he doesn’t physcatalog of personality diagnostics. There’s the My- also focuses on specific traits; ically lead and guide people as a shepherd. Neverers-Briggs, StrengthsFinder, Rorschach test. And each type is described by theless, this beautiful psalm describes God within apart from tests that are explicitly called personality a specific name (e.g. Type the context of human experience makes the nature 1 Psalm 23:1-3 tests, there are other systems that attempt to explain Three is “The Achiever”.)
TAUG
9
I
WORDS MELODIE DEISHER
dentity deologies
and actions of God legible to human beings. The problem of describing the divine and describing a person’s personality are similarly challenged by their attempts to put words to things that cannot fully be described in words. This is not to say that humans are God, or even that these two problems are equally significant. It is, however, to say that there are some things which human constructions cannot fully encompass. If the question of who we are and why we are that way has been explored for literally thousands of years and continues, how have no definitive answers been found? (To be clear, by “answer” I mean some sort of objective, empirical system which can precisely and accurately map personalities without leaving any outlying data. I also am assuming that the Enneagram, or any other test, is contestable for a number of reasons and therefore not definitive nor conclusive.) Personality tests represent a longing for an understanding of oneself which is more than superficial, and which is tied to a bigger story. But these personality tests can’t answer why throughout history, humans care to think about personality and identity in the first place. The concept of personality generally depends on the existence of a soul, which might be loosely defined (because there have, of course, been many variations in the definition of the soul throughout history) as a sort of immaterial substance within each person that allows for intellectual and emotional capabilities that transcends biological mechanisms. In many cases, the soul contains or reflects a piece of the divine; it is therefore also immortal. Within the context of personality tests, the soul allows for and contains personality; it is the
10 TAUG
object which is characterized and described. The concept of the soul is indeed a tenet of Christian thought. There is a concept called imago dei: the image of God. It is based off of the description of God creating man on the sixth day of creation found in Genesis: “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’ So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”2 In other words, God made humans like himself; something essential in each person reflects something about God. Human beings, according to Christian thought, contain an immaterial and immortal soul, which allows them to both connect to and reflect God. One way that humans reflect God is in their ability to even ponder the questions of personality and identity: the ability to think and reason in abstract ways. Also, human beings reflect God by enacting their unique identities in interactions and relationships with others. Even in this creation scene, God moves and acts and speaks in human terms. Though we don’t know that he literally did this, the imagery helps us to understand more of who God is. In a similar way, personality tests are human attempts to understand themselves and each other. Both anthropomorphisms and personality tests are imperfect human developments which attempt 2 Genesis 1:26-27
to explain that which is ineffable. The scale of God’s ineffability is of course larger than that of human personality. It does make sense, however, that as small reflectors of God, humans do contain something essential which is not fully translatable to language. God is so abundant in love that he created humanity to be like him, able to reciprocate love and develop relationships. Somehow, God is creative enough to imagine such wide variety within human being; there is a plethora of ways to embody love, joy, hope, peace, goodness, and all the things that God is (even the things which can’t fully be put into words). God is transcendent of categories: he is big enough that he reveals many small glimmers of himself in mere mortals. And most importantly, he revealed himself in Jesus Christ, who was God himself sent to earth to restore humanity to a relationship with God. We can know who God is from his word in the Scriptures, from his revelation to us in Christ, and also from experiencing him, where though still limited by our human capacities, we are not necessarily limited by the constraints of language. So maybe the first question to ask God doesn’t have to be about what your personality type is, as my friend suggested. God has already given the answer in a sense: our identity is to be as image bearers of him. The question then changes from “who am I?” to “who is God?”, and perhaps that is a question worth asking God— maybe in Heaven—but also right now.
The quest for human knowledge is a quest for identity. In order to find answers to questions of human existence and purpose on this planet, people have developed multiple modes of acquiring knowledge to find answers to these questions. Modern scientific means of acquiring knowledge has its foundations in the philosophical principles established by Enlightenment thinkers of the 17th century. The Enlightenment marked a fundamental change in the way people considered the origins of human knowledge and its development. Moving away from a heavy reliance on Greco-Roman classics and philosophy (e.g. Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, etc.) that had formerly been used by scholars to answer pressing questions about the world, Enlightenment thinkers and philosophers like John Locke encouraged people to engage with the natural world around them with their own sensing faculties. In An Essay on Human Understanding (1689), Locke’s treatise on the origins of human thought and knowledge, Locke presented a (then) revolutionary proposal that “there are none to which all mankind give an universal assent.” No knowledge is innate and we are not born with any internalized truths that are simply waiting to be beckoned into fruition. Contrary to popular belief at the time, Locke believed that everything could be constructed from our five senses: “Whence has it all the materials of reason and knowledge? To this I answer, in one word, from experience: in that, all our knowledge is founded and from that it ultimately derives itself. Our observation employed either about external sensible objects; or about the internal operations of our minds, perceived and reflected on by ourselves, is that, which supplies our understandings with all the materials of thinking. These two are the fountains of knowledge, from whence all the ideas we have, or can naturally have, do spring.” Internal thinking operations occurring within the mind are directly correlated to real-time sensory experiences that an individual had been exposed/was being exposed to. To know, according to Locke, one needs to experience the world with their God-given sensory faculties1. By synthesizing these sensory experiences absorbed from the 1 In order to appease religious authorities, Locke’s Essay still postulated that, although knowledge is not innate, the sensing faculties used to acquire knowledge are, and are thus God-given.
Emily is a second-year history and molecular environmental biology double major. When not in some sort of classroom or lab, she enjoys being outdoors, hiking, running, cooking, and reading. TAUG
11
world around us and after serious internal reflection and attendance to these sensed experiences, an individual could subsequently create complex knowledge/thoughts.2 Locke’s writings on sensory learning in turn established the foundational work for the “empiricist movement,” a movement that developed during the 18th Century Age of Enlightenment founded on the principle that “ all knowledge is based on experience derived from the senses” (Oxford Dictionaries)3 and was crucial for the development of modern science and its modes of experimentation that we know today. However, Locke’s philosophical discourse on knowledge is not without flaws, and he would continue to struggle to address internal discrepancies that would stem from his Essay. Additionally, Locke’s understanding of how individuals acquire knowledge and how they understand themselves and others ultimately reduces the individual to the composite of as many simple ideas they can acquire in a lifetime. If individuals are to be reduced to only an object composed of physically sensed parts, there is a sense of a lack of fulfillment to the human existence because there is no purpose or reason that can be derived solely from the input of the senses. Anyone who has interacted with another, human being (albeit, one who is alive), will know that the complexities of another person are such that one can still be struck by their deep internal complexities even if a relationship with them has existed for more than a decade, and thus the empiricist view of the world as one method of knowing and identifying still presents many deficiencies in our understanding of ourselves. According to science, humans are the sum of their many sensed parts, however, this fact does not engage with the reality of human interiority (e.g. 2 An oversimplified way to consider this is to think of the senses as building blocks. In order to develop complex thoughts (e.g. the feeling of excitement) one would arrange their “sensory blocks” in such a way that would “build” their understanding of this feeling. 3 Fun fact: George Berkeley, the 18th Century philosopher that our school, UC Berkeley is named after, was an eminent empiricist thinker of his time.
12 TAUG
emotions, feelings, thoughts, etc). If we are the sum of many parts, there is not anything that would suggest our purpose or reason for existence and we are simply, a bag of randomly assorted items that was joined into a functioning and breathing organism by mere happenstance. Another means of contextualizing the search for knowledge is through Christian ideology. The Christian view of the world is another way to approach the search for knowledge of ourselves that acknowledges both the existence of human interiority and the complexities of individuals and the physical complexities of our created world. According to the Genesis account of Creation, “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”4 From the very beginning of the Bible, mankind is identified in relation to their unique identity as image-bearers of God. The Christian identity far extends beyond what modern science has taught us to believe, that we are simply a collection of sensible objects, and suggests that this bundle of different parts is created by a Creator whose image we bear. Christianity explains that the origins of human existence are not a result of random selection: God has created us and has put us on this earth because it is according to His perfect plan and it delights Him to do so. The purpose and reason we dwell on this earth, is answered in the origins of our identity as the Creation of God. Saint Paul (c. 5-66) in his Epistle to the Colossians writes, “For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.”5 This simple statement relates that all individuals, groups, systems, and societies are created through God (i.e. the Lord is the means of Creation) and His purpose in creating them (i.e. for the glory of His name). The Psalmist writes in the Book of Psalms, “For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden 4 Genesis 1:27, ESV 5 Colossians 1:16, ESV
“The meaning of our identity as one that is Godbreathed thus suggests why the empiricist methodology of knowing oftentimes seems to fail us in our search for purpose and identity.”
from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them. How precious to me are your thoughts, O God! How vast is the sum of them! If I would count them, they are more than the sand.”6 The Psalmist David finds his delight in knowing his Maker because in knowing his Creator, he comes to a better understanding of himself. Humans, the Psalmist writes, are not simply what we can see on the outside, but possess “inward parts” (e.g. emotion, thoughts, etc). The Psalmist writes, “How precious to me are your thoughts, O God! How vast is the sum of them!” God’s thoughts are precious to the Psalmist because he knows that it is in these thoughts, that the nature of his Creator will be revealed to him. He can spend a lifetime learning because they are innumerable, “more than the sand”. The complexity of our Creator thus reveals the complexity of humankind as His creation that is made in His image. As our Creator delights in His Creation knowing him, so too do we as His Creation delight in the knowledge of being known. How we will become known and to come into the fullness of our identity is to seek the knowledge of our Creator. “But let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the Lord who practices steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth. For in these things I delight, declares the Lord”7 Our Creator put a deep desire within us to be identified because He wants us—His Creation—to look to His character and in His person for answers about our own identity. However, it is important not to deify ourselves in this pursuit; and we see the hierarchy that exists between Creator and Creation as we realize in our pursuit that the thoughts of God “are more than the sands” and that God’s superiority as Creator resides in how our knowledge of Him is boundless. The Christian understanding of identity is one that is fulfilled in knowing the heart and character of our Creator. Just as a painter knows every single masterpiece he has created, so too does our Maker. God knows us on an even more intimate level than the painter because He knows us down to the number of hairs that we each have on our heads.8 The meaning of our identity as one that is God-breathed thus suggests why the empiricist methodology of knowing oftentimes seems to fail us in our search for purpose and identity. The latter method is unable to give a real sense of purpose to our lives here on earth and is limited to its sensual observations of the world. The Christian life maintains that our identities are greater than collections of axon and dendrite synapses and continuous ATP cycles that we can view under the lenses of powerful electron microscopes. The Christian identity is in an omniscient and omnipotent God who, in His pleasure, has created our world and has created us. Our answers to mankind’s deepest questions in regards to our identity are thus ultimately realized in our pursuit of the knowledge of Him. Melodie is a third-year English major, minoring in Chinese who enjoys bad puns and baking herself into a frenzy in the kitchen. 6 Psalm 139: 14-18, ESV 7 Jeremiah 9:24, ESV 8 Luke 12:7
TAUG
13
Everything Else Thrown In: C.S. Lewis on Identity
“I
f there’s anything you should take from college, it’s to question everything.” These words, some of the first I ever heard from a professor, were meant to inspire understanding, although they produced quite the opposite. I wrestled with this thought and its ramifications. I struggled to reconcile the skeptic’s ideology with basic, human desire for truth. College is regarded as a place of discovery, but with a mindset of endless doubt, are we destined to discover only more questions? To question everything implies that we must also question our core selves. Questioning assumes distrust, which lends itself to insecurity and division. How can one find belonging and identity in the shifting sands of perpetual debate? Where can one find purpose? Identity is valuable because we attach meaning to it. For as abstract a concept as it is, identity is indeed greatly influential over life’s course. Human beings assign meaning to identity by both attempting to define identity and improve it. If identity did not mat-
14 TAUG
ter, we would not witness heated debates and emotional contests over race-ethnic, gender, and class identities, to name a few. Moreover, we are surrounded by constant attempts to improve identity—at the onset of the calendar year, for instance. Imagine the questions we ask ourselves, or those answered at the common funeral: What do I want to be remembered for? How do I want people to think of me? Am I a success or failure? We find ourselves synonymizing identity with reputation. Further, in identity we find security, a sense of belonging, home, and ultimately, an understanding of self—shallow as it may be. Identity is seen as the composite of an intersectionality of attributable components. But is that its true definition? C.S. Lewis (1898–1963) directly and indirectly addressed the concept of identity to his secular audience; he dedicated his literary work and scholarship to exploring and perpetuating faith-based answers to skeptical queries. In his famous speech “The Inner Ring,” delivered to King’s College students in World War II-era London, Lewis acknowledges the boundaries by which we define identities and the motivations by which they assume value. This piece explores the concept of the Inner Ring: an exclusive membership or designation in a clique whose value is founded upon its inaccessibility. He describes that one of life’s “most dominant elements is the desire to be inside the local Ring and the terror of being left outside… Of all the passions, the passion for the Inner Ring is most skillful in
WORDS KARA ANDERSON
“I am not limited to my faith; it is through my faith that I can question, define, and argue everything else.”
making a man who is not yet a very bad man do very bad things.”1 Lewis exposes the weak nature that identity assumes when it is based on exclusion—and he recognizes that simply avoiding a stigma of otherness is no fixed identity at all. He says, “The circle cannot have from within the charm it had from the outside. By the very act of admitting you it has lost its magic…The invisible line would have no meaning unless most people were on the wrong side of it. Exclusion is no accident; it is the essence.” This analysis is not to suggest that identity is bad, but rather, that it is so highly valued by humans in a competitive society that it may be used for negative ends. One’s identity can classify them as in or out, worthy or unworthy, committed or apathetic. Further expounding on the value of identity, Lewis wrote, “You never know how much you really believe anything until its truth or falsehood becomes a matter of life and death to you.”2 This is relevant to both religious and nonreligious identities. How can an identity become so deeply ingrained in one’s person that it leads them to give their life for their country? Or, perhaps it leads them to take their own life for a lack of identity found in life worth living. In Christianity, this same value is manifested in dying to oneself.3 Lewis was spectacularly curious. He drew from his conversion as a former atheist and addressed philosophical and logical debate head-on. A theological writer to the secular reader, Lewis employed imaginative fiction and nonfiction approaches to craft timeless, widely celebrated literature. In response to my professor’s introductory statement, Lewis’s devilish character Screwtape would explain, “Your man has been accustomed, ever since he was a boy, to have a dozen incompatible philosophies dancing about together inside his head. He doesn’t think of doctrines as primarily ‘true’ or ‘false,’ but as ‘academic’ or ‘practical,’ ‘outworn’ or ‘contemporary,’ 1 C.S. Lewis, “The Inner Ring,” 1944 (retrieved from The Weight of Glory, C.S. Lewis, 1949). 2 C.S. Lewis, A Grief Observed, 1961. 3 Galatians 2:20.
‘conventional’ or ‘ruthless.’”4 In these terms, debates are endlessly waged between two opposing but equal sides, precluding any possibility of ultimate truth. The thinker is devoted to exploring all concepts of reality and identity—ever seeking, but never finding. To this notion, Screwtape would further expound, “Prosperity knits a man to the world. He feels that he is finding his place in it, while really it is finding its place in him.” Prosperity may appear in varying forms contributing to identity: accumulation of wealth, accumulation of social capital, accumulation of knowledge. Indeed, Screwtape’s description posits that one’s own pursuit of identity can usurp their agency and corrupt the pursuit altogether. On a Christian basis, this legitimizes the faith even if by default only: if we will ultimately surrender ourselves or be surrendered, it is far better to surrender consciously and understand the consequences of that decision. Of course, Lewis also notes that such a prosperity of knowledge will unavoidably bring an individual into contact with ultimate Truth, which forces them to either reject it or embrace it. Lewis experienced this precise conflict and described his capitulation, “I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all of England.” As a cautionary tale to his skeptic readers, he wrote, “A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading.”5 Given Lewis’s conversion experience, then, what distinguished his curiosity from cynicism? How did he draw a conclusion into which he could invest his identity? The writer experienced a complex chain of events and outcomes on his journey to Christianity, but they were benchmarked by themes. First, he grappled with the identity of God. Not automatically leaping from atheism to Christianity, he initially waffled between accepting the existence of a deity and identifying that deity as the God of the Bible. In biblical framework, then, how do we identify God? God is a self-existing spirit independent of space and time; in both the Old Testament and New Testament, He refers to himself as “I AM.”6 God’s ultimate identity supersedes tenses, for He presently is, always was, and always will be. Being that God is untouchable and unknowable by nature, we are able to know Him through Jesus Christ, who taught and exhibited the principles of godly behavior in divinely human form. Christ is characterized by kindness, mercy, patience, love, sacrifice, and ultimate Goodness—and He taught his followers how to prac4 C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters, 1942. 5 C.S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy, 1955. 6 Exodus 3:14, John 8:58.
TAUG
15
tice those traits as they seek Him. However, principles definable by vocabulary inherently oversimplify the full extent of God’s identity—He is far too great to be entirely conceptualized in human thought. The mechanisms by which we imagine Him are not supernatural as much as they are functional. Therefore, traits of God’s identity are not gods unto themselves; implementations of Jesus’ teachings do not deify His followers. Images and demonstrations are not divine; they represent the divine. Likewise, a person is not legitimized by their identity solely, but they are represented by it. Another debate concerning identity is the structure by which we associate identity unto itself. That is, we know that God exists independently of anything or anyone else; is the same true for human beings? Both a modern, secular scholar and a historical, Christian one would agree that it is not, although they would argue this distinction differently. When asked the age-old question, “What is the meaning of life?” novelist John Green answered simply, “Other people.”7 At first glance, an explanation this straightforward is striking; it appears to encapsulate the whole of human experience in two words. However, he approaches the issue somewhat ironically, regarding community as the extent of human experience, simultaneously disregarding the significance of individual personhood and devaluing individual complexity. It amounts to a gross oversimplification indeed. Green
essentially argues that the safety found in numbers counteracts potential limitations to navigating life alone, precluding the possibility of either human autonomy or dependence on a higher power. In contrast, Screwtape would answer, “When He [God] talks of their losing their selves, He means only abandoning the clamour of self; once they have done that, He really gives them back all their personality… when they are wholly His they will be more themselves than ever.” Lewis argues that any meaning in life is found only in directing one’s quest for meaning to their Creator, from whom they will receive liberty and identity in the truest and most eternal sense. Lewis does not discredit the significance of community, however, and would agree with Green that relativity to other people determines a degree of one’s own identity. He further writes, “When they have really learned to love their neighbours as themselves, they will be allowed to love themselves as their neighbours.”8 The definitions of Green’s and Lewis’s versions of social interdependence vary according to the anchor upon which they are set. Green proposes that other people are both the foundation and the byproduct of life’s meaning. Lewis, however, posits that faith in God is the foundation of life’s meaning and purpose, and other people are its earthly companions. He encapsulates the argument in this statement: “Look for Christ and you will find Him, and with Him everything else thrown in.”9
7 John Green, “100 QUESTIONS ANSWERED!!!!!!!” (Vlogbrothers) https://youtu.be/nJs1dLGbGZY?t=87
8 C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters, 1942. 9 C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, 1952.
16 TAUG
With any discussion of identity also appears the question: Is identity concrete? Although the concreteness of social attributes of identity is hotly debated and highly political, another facet of identity’s solidity is its relation to time. Is identity past, present, or future? Scholars from varying backgrounds—who claim varying identities themselves—would argue several different claims, but Lewis’s stance is clear. He explains, “The Future is, of all things, the thing least like eternity. It is the most temporal part of time—for the Past is frozen and no longer flows, and the Present is all lit up with eternal rays.”10 If identity can be associated with eternity—a reasonable assumption given the abstractness of both concepts, the past cannot be the frame by which identity is established and certainly not by which it is continuously cultivated. The past is essentially nonliving. Although it is significant, it is not current, and because it is not current, it is not fully accurate. The future, on the other hand, is uncertain, which makes it feeble grounds for identity. Identities possess hopes represented by the future, which also contributes to complexity, but those hopes are not realities, thus not identities. The present, therefore, is home to identity, for the present encapsulates all someone is and has ever been. Beyond time, however, identity must be fully revealed in eternity. God, as the timeless spirit He is, is not limited to identity in the present, for His identity is not simply what has always been, but also what always will be. This is the gap within the human spirit that must be filled, as Lewis wrote, “If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world.”11 In seemingly the simplest of deduction, Lewis assesses the heart of the matter, which he formally defines as mere Christianity. He finds that when an individual honestly believes, fully surrenders, and becomes merely Christian—that is, Christian for the sake of Christ Himself, with no other motivations deciding the commitment for them—then that must be wherein they find all identity. Lewis summarized this beautiful truth in a few sentences written decades ago, which bear repeating, even within this paper: “Give up yourself, and you will find your real self. Lose your life and you will save it…Look for yourself, and you will find in the long run only hatred, loneliness, despair, rage, ruin, and decay. But look for Christ and you will find Him, and with Him everything else thrown in.” When one takes root in the condition of being merely Christian, then that identity is exhaustive—and, beautifully but not coincidentally, eternal. Contrary to what the skeptic would argue, finding identity in Christ alone is expansive rather than exclusive. I am not limited to my faith; it is through my faith that I can question, define, and argue everything else. In the words of Paul, “For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain.” Kara is a third-year sociology major fascinated by the intersection of faith and logic. She enjoys reading, writing, music, politics, and ever-expanding her C.S. Lewis library.
10 C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters, 1942. 11 C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, 1952.
TAUG
17
WORDS JOSEPH RODRIGUEZ
“to be created in god’s image means to be set apart from the rest of creation.”
imago dei and the glory of god
G
od’s creation is good, really good. It’s so good God said so six times. I imagine a resounding roar emanating from the mouth of God; a sound so great that it shook the very foundations of the Earth. This phrase—“It was good”—follows a certain pattern in the first few chapters of the book of Genesis: God speaks into existence His creation and something happens. I wonder what might have been going on in the Creator’s mind the moment He spoke into existence the beautiful night sky, the roaring winds, and the blazing sun. Words alone are not enough to express the infinite, unbounding perfection of God’s creation. One wonders in awe how great the God is that put into place the galaxies we gaze upon; the sensations we receive when eating a chocolate chip cookie; or even the warmth and astonishment we experience when watching a sunset. I ask when thinking about this: Why such a breathtaking world? Why such a universe? There’s a statistic out there that has it that there are more stars in the universe than there are sounds or words that have ever been spoken by all human beings in all of history. I ponder this and think: “What an amazing home God has crafted for us.” The words of the Psalmist pronounce this wonderful reality: “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge. They have no speech, they use no words; no sound is heard from them. Yet their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.”1 1 Psalm 19:1–4, NIV.
God’s creation of the universe is not merely a series of random, unthoughtful trial and error events. Rather, God follows a plan that is driven by purpose; a purpose that is precise, empty of mistakes, and immersed with perfection. Each created thing, each step, and each act is “good.” Following along with the creation account, we find that God’s creation of man is the ultimate climax. It is then that God announces to us that man is “very good.” Listen to words of Genesis 1:27: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”2 At first glance, the word ‘image’ pops out vividly. What exactly does an image do? For one, the point of an image is to do just that: to image. Images are erected in cities to display the original person who created them. In other words, images point to their originals. One may even say that they are there to glorify the original. Just think of the multitude of images that exist out there in our world. God made us human beings in His image so that the world would be filled with reflectors of Himself. That’s exactly who we are when we are made in the image of God: we are image bearers of God. To put it in a different note, we are statues. In the words of John Piper, there exist 7 billion statues of God— how can we not miss the point? To be created in God’s image means to be set apart from the rest of creation. The Latin term imago dei has been employed by theologians, both Christian and non-Christian, to understand this profound truth. We, 2
18 TAUG
Genesis 1:27, ESV.
as human beings, are the pinnacle of God’s creation, and we realize that man is a reflection of God Himself. Man is intended to live as God’s created analogy. Our main purpose for existence is to reflect God in His glory; it is to show something of who God is unlike anything else. There is a trend in the history of philosophical thought centered precisely on this very topic: the theme of identity. It dates as far back to Aristotle (384 BC - 322 BC) and is even in dialogue in the modern age. We want to know who we are. What distinguishes us, say, from an animal? Is it intelligence, rationality, creativity, language, or perhaps the existence of an immortal soul? For Aristotle, thinking about man is invariably tied in with truth. Aristotle once noted, “To say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not.” While it may seem that Aristotle is just jumbling a bunch of words together, what he is actually saying is quite simple. Aristotle is claiming that if I say “The sky is blue,” and if the sky is blue, then I speak truth. In fact, Aristotle simply equates truth with the verb “to be.” To say “fire is hot” is to say that “it is true fire is hot.” If the verb “to be” is truth, then we are all obsessed with truth. Just think: How many times a day do we use this verb? The sun is shining. It is 5 o’clock. I am Joseph. Shakespeare just wants to know the answer to the question to be or not to be? We even call ourselves human beings. It’s part of who we are. While Aristotle’s ‘account’ of man is successful, I do not find it satisfying. For an account to be successful, it must accurately detail a given state of affairs. Aristotle does this. For an account to be satisfying, however, it
must do more than that; more than just simply giving us an explanation, it must explain why. Part of the task we are presented with is to determine whether or not Aristotle’s argument satisfies us. Many will be quick to claim that it does satisfy, but I believe the majority of us think otherwise. Thus, what we need for our account to be complete is this why condition. Let’s now turn our attention to John Calvin—a notable 16th century Reformed theologian—who might be able to help us. Calvin says this: “we are not to consider that men merit of themselves but to look upon the image of God in all men, to which we owe all honor and love.”3 What Calvin is saying here is that man is the created image of God. Calvin is restating this Biblical truth we read in the book of Genesis. According to Calvin and the Reformed tradition he belonged to, in what way does the fact that we are made in God’s image affect <or ought to affect> the way we live our lives? The Westminster Shorter Catechism attempts to nail this point down. It asks, “What is the chief end of man?” That is, in view of God’s goal what should our goal be? It then answers, “The chief end of man is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever.” That sentence can scarcely be improved upon, for that is just what the Bible teaches. But what it means to glorify God and how one does it is not immediately obvious. The term glory is employed by Biblical authors to refer precisely to the character of God. In fact, theologians say that the glory of God is the putting on display His character for the world to see, to apprehend, to appreciate, to cherish, and to worship. One may ask: what exactly are these characteristics? One of the chief characteristics of God is His holiness. It’s Himself set apart from the rest of creation that constitutes His glory. This is what holiness means. Other characteristics of God that flow from His holiness are His justice, mercy, forgiveness, love, compassion, and kindness. As Christians, we are called to glorify God, so let’s now explore what this means in practice. When we glorify God, we do not make Him glorious, because He is glorious. To be glorious means to contain every good attri3 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 3.7.6
TAUG
19
bute (including goodness itself!). When we love others, show mercy, compassion, and faithfulness, we act in accordance to God’s character. Put more simply, to glorify God means to display His glory, to act like He is glorious, and to make much of Him like He is the most valuable and glorious thing in the universe. This calling to a life centered on glorifying God can be extremely difficult. As Christians, we realize our utter failure and neglection of this truth every single day. The book of Romans reminds us: “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”4 Though we fight, struggle, and war daily against our sin and fickle hearts, we understand that as Christians we cannot perfectly reflect God’s image no matter how best we try. But we understand that our hope is rooted in the person of Jesus, who is the perfect image of God Himself. The nature and purpose of God’s intention to create beings who are made in His image is fulfilled in Jesus. We trust in Jesus, the perfect God-imager, when we realize we cannot do it alone. Furthermore, the image and likeness of God becomes the essence of who we are. Let’s see how Aristotle and Calvin can help us refine our picture of what and who a human being is. Using Aristotelian language, we can define what a human being is according to its essence and according to its function. When we talk about defining a human being as made in the image of God, we are talking about their essence. This is the core of who they—we— are. Our function flows from our essence. What we are in our nature enables us to do what we do as humans. We start, foundationally, with essence, and we define a human by its essence. We celebrate and appreciate the function that flows from our essence because we invariably anchor our existence in it. We are defined by what we are; and what we do flows from that and shows who we are. It’s man as man—not some element in him or merely an ability that constitutes the divine image. We are all made in the image and like4 Romans 3:23, ESV.
20 TAUG
ness of God. It is who we are, and it is what we are. The former is an ontological definition while the latter is a functional definition. Why exactly is this reality significant? It is because of our imago dei that we can create a basis for human value, worth, and dignity. Every single human being from conception to death is to be recognized as equally human, equally worthy of dignity, and with full
value. This truth is realized regardless of race, gender, socioeconomic status, creed, or any functional characteristic we can think of. What we see in our function does not define us. And because of this we can establish a real and genuine basis for ethics. We can have firm standing for calling actions right and wrong. For instance, we say murder is wrong because murder destroys the very image of God. We treat people the way we do because we revere and love God so much. This is the Christian life—to reflect God’s image and treat people like they do too. Upon reflection, we see that God’s creation of the world gives us our identity. Our
identity informs us how we live our lives, how we treat others, and how we look at the world. We came to this understanding by using Aristotle and Calvin to teach us about the function of man and the crucial implications that follow from this. We learned that as Christians our function is to glorify God and because of this our hearts should—in fact ought—to love the glory of God. In doing so, it will always produce outward actions which witness to our eternal love for God’s glory. Having this satisfy our hearts is the first step towards becoming a person of love. In love, we commit ourselves to the most beautiful outward signal of glorifying God we can perform.
“ we celebrate and appreciate the function that flows from our essence because we invariably anchor our existence in it. we are defined by what we are; and what we do flows from that and shows who we are.” Joseph is a second-year studying political science and philosophy. In his free time, he enjoys studying theology and Christian apologetics. He recently has learned ancient Greek, and is excited to start reading the New Testament in its original language.
the uniqueness of dignity
WORDS SIMON KUANG
Simon It scares me the world when I think of eternity. “Eternal,” that is eternal! He sees that. But again it is not eternal, but a moment, yes, a moment!—Wozzeck, I shudder when I think that the world turns around in one day: that’s why I can not see a mill wheel anymore, or I’m getting melancholy!
A
preoccupation with things that are forever is a fundamental annoyance of being human. On this subject the Captain of lAlban Berg’s Wozzeck is in agreement with the Teacher of Ecclesiastes: “he has put eternity into man’s heart.” Wisdom writings in the Hebrew Bible highlight the cleverness of ants, which appear to store up food in the summer so that they will be nourished in the months to come. Bemoaned is the folly of ostriches, which leave their eggs on the ground to be warmed by the Sun, vulnerable to trampling by rogue beasts. For man the situation is different. He looks through the telescope of time, and though he cannot bring the image into focus, he knows for certain that the image is of himself. It is in Heaven or it is in Hell. Christians believe that the natural world was created in five days, and Adam and Eve on the sixth. After each day’s work except for the sixth, God described his creation as good. But the creation of human beings is called very good, and we know that this is because humans, though finite and fallible, are equipped with an “image of God” that sets them apart from the beasts. Having been equipped with this “image of Go,” humans are distinguished by their ability to know God by reason, and
the ability to know right from wrong and love from hate. Because of this ability, humans, unlike the dumb rocks, plants, and animals, were given a command: love the Lord your God, and love your neighbor as yourself. No other created thing is able to rise to such a high calling; neither may such a rule be imposed on a thing unable to comprehend it. But humans were eligible to obey, and to be richly rewarded for their obedience, or disobey, and bitterly suffer for their disobedience. “I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse” (Deut. 30:19a English Standard Version). The essentially human crisis—what does eternity hold?—planted in Genesis is affirmed in the last words of Moses, lawgiver to Israel. Had the first man kept God’s law, all creation would perhaps have remained alive, and Earth would go on to be filled with good fruit to be enjoyed by its human lords. But the life of plants and animals, even if it were to continue without end, cannot fully be called “eternal,” for plants and animals have no comprehension of how their life began, or agency in its maintenance, or expectation for the times to come. For humans, on the other hand, the prospect of life-without-end is far weightier. Having clay in their hands and God in their minds, Adam and Eve knew precisely whence they came into being. With every passing day they would grow in physical strength, as well as intellect of creation and its creator, and love of God and man: though never excelling the clay in mere duration, they would ever more splendidly surpass it in eternity of life. Furthermore, unlike the dumb clay, they were in charge of their
TAUG
21
own eternity. God can bring clay into and out of existence, and the clay would not know. Neither does the clay care that its existence continue in an altered form—by being baked into a pot, for instance. Clay, unlike Wozzeck’s captain above, does not care about eternity. But Adam and Eve had to face the possibility of eternal death as a result of their own choices. They were not passive passengers on eternity’s smooth tides, but novice pedestrians walking an infinitely long tightrope suspended over the grave. As the possibility of sleep heightens the awareness that one is awake, so the possibility of eternal death heightened their awareness that they could be on the course of an eternal life. Adam sinned, and as promised, death and ruin now pervade creation. Human beings have since been inclined by nature to hate God and neighbor. But to a limited extent, humans are still “very good” even though they are bad. This is because the image of God, which was “very good,” has persisted in human nature. Adam and Eve were not called “very good” because they were without defect, or else all things would have been called “very good” as well. The image of God, for example, includes the ability to love and to hate. When this quasi-divine capacity is rightly exercised, the human loves God and his neighbor, while hating evil (this second clause was not applied to the first humans, who were not even aware of evil). Even though humans forego this right, loving evil instead—in particular, loving themselves—and hate God and their neighbors, the divine image has not been erased, only corrupted, inverted, defaced. The ancient predicate “very good” that separated man from beast has turned dialectical; now it is “very good, gone very wrong.” Hell is very good because it affirms the image of God. “He has put eternity into man’s heart” and will not take it out. God prescribes that microbes, plants, and animals that die a physical death should simply pass out of existence and eventually into forgetfulness. These creatures were made from dust, and can be returned to their pre-created raw materials without much fuss. Humans too, were made from dust. But the recipe for instantiating a human combines the physical makeup with a rational soul infused with reason, love—and eternity. It would do violence to the image of God to reduce a human to mere matter and sense. God will not do that. It might not be far from the truth to say that he cannot. Hell affirms that humans have the power of free choice. This is distinguished from the “free choice” of animals, who seem to make choices either for pleasure or survival. Human choice, on the other hand, is propelled by reason, which favors truth, virtue, and beauty. (To gratify the quest for such higher goods than pleasure and mere survival is a goal of the modern university, at least in theory.) As St. Thomas puts it, “Nevertheless men buried in the misery of hell are not deprived of free choice, even though their will is immovably attached to evil” (Compendium of Theology cap. 124). Dark to knowledge of the divine Good, humans in Hell will apply their reason to whatever they perceive brings their last end of happiness. They will strive for happiness and attain all they desire in the
“It would do violence to the image of God to reduce a human to mere matterand sense. God will not do that. It might not be far from the truth to say that he cannot.”
course of striving, save for happiness, yet they will not change their minds, for they will have profound logic and love for their own wretchedness. Hell will be a monument to the strength of human love and reason, by showing how it has gone badly wrong. If Hell had spectators, they would contemplate the image of God as though they were viewing the wreck of a crashed Mercedes-Benz, or the shattered remains of a beautiful vase. The disaster of violence magnifies the splendor of nature, and vice versa. Hell affirms that humans are responsible for their actions. In the paradise of Eden, all things steadily worked towards their highest good—the likeness of God the Creator. If there were sunflowers in the garden, then I am sure that they perfectly succeeded in facing the Sun at all times in order to meet their highest good, viz. to convert the unliving content of the soil to the vibrant wonders of life (just as God is alive) and to reproduce and fill Earth with a reasonable amount of sunflowers (just as God is creative). (To produce delicious seeds for humans can be named as well, for God works for the benefit of man.) Similar things can be said about the animals and all other living and nonliving things. After the Fall, all things have effectively been stripped of the means to their end. There is, however, no Hell for sunflowers that don’t grow exactly right—they will be summarily destroyed. Humans, which cannot simply be destroyed, are instead subjected to “the terrifying awareness in one’s conscience of divine anger and judgment” (Ursinus). No one will chastise plants and animals for their unruly behavior, because they have no conscience. The goats that are “hired” to clear grass from the Berkeley Hills every summer are not paid a minimum wage. That one’s actions could deserve payment— reward or punishment—is an essentially human characteristic that follows from having the divine image. It is a shadow of the fact that God, perfect in his essence and being at once, deserves worship. Unruly humans, on the other hand, deserve “continuous torment of soul and body.” This quality of deservingness is called dignity, and it is not all a bad thing. It is the basis of much about human rights (which concentrates on deserving good) and justice (which concentrates on deserving punishment). It is also central to the Protestant question: how can one deserve Heaven? For just as the image of God is what makes Hell good and deserved for those who prefer it, Heaven is reserved for those who deserve it. The principle of dignity works in our favor, beginning with Jesus Christ, a human who lived a life of perfectly loving God and his neighbor. As God he was able to claim for himself the Hell-like torment deserved by sinners; as human he underwent it. As God he draws believers to himself in a perfect union, so that we will share with him the eternal reward that he deserved— namely, to invert the words of Zacharias Ursinus’s Large Catechism, not “the terrifying awareness in one’s conscience of divine anger and judgment, and the continuous torment of soul and body,” but the blissful awareness in one’s conscience of divine satisfaction and approval, and the continuous delight of soul and body. The divine image finds rest in the divine himself. Simon is a third-year EECS major who enjoys music, math, chess, and the theology of Karl Barth.
22 TAUG
TAUG
23
testimony T’was a fine day when I heard the news I was happy but then covered with blues They said we were going to the United States Where other family awaits Don’t get me wrong, I was truly joyful And for the honor, I am really thankful But a little I mourned When the announcement adjourned My life will change from each row I’ll leave the life I know So we got to the airport And all I can think of was “abort, abort” As I saw a last glimpse of my home Our plane started to rome I spent my time at the plane crying As it passed over the Pacific flying We got there at a cold raining night I felt like it was such a short flight We saw our other family waving and greeting I was wondering, am I happy or just pretending Still, I was hung up because my home is now thousands of miles Soo really, is what I show true smiles Months have passed When someone asked Do you want to go to school? I said yes, knowledge is fuel But really I am scared I’m just unprepared What should I expect Ugh, I’m gonna be a wreck…. I stayed at school without a friend I felt such loneliness, I just wanted it to end No comfort of someone that cared Nor someone whose happiness they’d be willing to share For this feeling to fade I turned myself to a blade It didn’t really ease or worsen the pain I really had nothing of a gain Inside of me was so hurt Like feeling you’re lower than dirt
24 TAUG
POEM HOPEY BALATAN
Felt like nothing was there to help me No matter how loud I cried or begged on my knee What most people don’t know Was how close to death I went to go There was a rope tied up high All in my head was just questions of “why?why?why?” I tied it to my neck and almost jumped But something got me stumped I let go of the rope and into the bed I crawl I closed my eyes and let sleep befall I lived in a daze since then Living life as if I haven’t had any ever since when It might not seem like a big deal to some But to me it wasn’t easy to overcome Seconds felt like hours Hours felt like second Days turned to weeks Weeks turned to months And months turned to almost a year… It wasn’t until one fateful day, when my church invited me to this retreat It sounded very nice and very neat Something baffled me going in there No more signs that say caution or beware
There, someone introduced themselves to me Someone that started filling my soul with glee Someone who didn’t make the situation worse Someone who gave healing better than a nurse
He is my best friend And I know he stays with me to the end My delight is knowing more of His love for me Reading the word is what fill me with glee
He gave me a greater love that nobody can take Didn’t feel like a dream where I will awake
I was in a dark and cold place I was running in circles at an increasing pace
It was the love God has given That made me really driven God who actually cared God, who actually shared
But God made his love warm like a sweater God shined light for the better I’ll end at this, In the Lord I found true bliss.
God gave me my life That would otherwise be ended by a rope or a knife; He gave me a reason to live, Gave me the courage to give. He is the one that knew the pains of my heart The one that says, “We will never be apart” The one that knows who I am And saw more that one who is broken
Hopey Balatan is a junior in Presence Fellowship at Livingwater Church. She loves Jesus, who quite literally saved her life. She is a BioEngineering major that loves working with prosthetics and is also a part of Berkeley’s Pilipinx community. She hopes ya’ll are blessed by her poem.
TAUG
25
ART LILY LI
artwork credit m e , s a l t e d
FRONT COVER
STEPHANY SU
8 WARREN WONG 10 ERIK EASTMAN 11 JOEL ROJAS 12 CHRIS BARBALIS ESTABAN CASTLE 13 SWAPNIL DWIVEDI 16 RAJ EIAMWORAKUL 17 ERIKA AKIRE 18, 20
BENJAMIN DAVIES
21 PENGSHENG GUO 22 BEN KONFRST 23 AARON BURDEN 25 IAN T 26 AKIRA KOJO 27 STEPHANY SU I have the need to be salted, seasoned, definedâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;first and foremost by my Creator. Jesus said that his followers ought to be salt of the earth (Matthew 5:13). This metaphor made me ponder. Salt? The common particles I thoughtlessly sprinkle into my cooking pan? But salt is essential. It saturates and preserves. It enlivens the character of the ecosystem that it dwells in. In my imagination, I picture Him constantly sprinkling salt into my mind, and His saltiness becomes my character.
BACK COVER
HARMONIE LAU
Lily is a third-year Urban Studies major and Sustainable Environmental Design minor. She enjoys hanging out at coffee shops, staring at cute dogs, and hiking with friends.
26 TAUG
TAUG
27
But now thus says the Lord, he who created you, O Jacob, he who formed you, O Israel: â&#x20AC;&#x153;Fear not, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by name, you are mine. Isaiah 43:1
unknowngodjournal.wordpress.com