Yale Logos: Fall 2013

THE

LOGOS

Fall 2013

Yale’s Undergraduate Magazine of Christian Thought

LOVE, SEX, & CHRISTIANITY

The Logos YALE’S UNDERGRADUATE MAGAZINE OF CHRISTIAN THOUGHT

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.

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.

DISCLAIMER The Logos is published

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

SUBSCRIPTIONS Your subscription will make future issues of The Logos possible. Contact eric. devillier@yale.edu for more information.

INFORMATION For more information, email the Executive Director at sherlyn.galarza@ yale.edu.

You can also follow and contribute to our website – http://www.yalelogos.com 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.

PRODUCTION MANAGER Folake Ogunmola (PC ‘15) COMMUNICATIONS Travis Reginal (BK ‘16) ASSISTANT DIRECTOR Amanda Farrell (BK ‘16) BOARD OF CUSTODIANS Sherlyn Galarza (PC ‘15) Shelly Kim (PC ‘15) April Koh (TD ‘14) Jeanni Hwang (TD ‘14) Richard Lee (MC ‘14) Rodney Evans (PC ‘14)

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Sherlyn Galarza (PC ‘15)

BOARD ADVISOR Gregory Ganssle, Ph.D. Lecturer of Philosophy

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Shelly Kim (PC ‘15)

COVER DESIGN Madeline Witt (SM ‘15)

BUSINESS MANAGER Eric Devilliers (MC ‘17)

STAFF Evy Behling (TC ‘17) Amanda Farrell (BK ‘16) Evelyn Robertson (TC ‘15) Rodney Evans (PC ’14) Richard Lee (MC ’14)

Editor’s Note Some of my favorite classes at Yale have been classes on Existential philosophy. Existentialism explores a wide range of themes, including angst, despair, freedom, death, authenticity, absurdity, the self, and the other. Although there is a strong atheist strain in much of Existentialism, I am always deeply moved when I read the works of many existential writers. I think this is because Existentialism, though sometimes characterized as dramatic and dark, reveals very familiar aspects of the human condition in an articulate, extreme way. Likewise (though perhaps not as dark), one of Logos Magazine’s passions is to identify such needs of all people and explore how Christianity deals with them. And if I had to identify the greatest human longing and need, it would be love.

Why do we feel the need to be loved? What deeper reality does this need uncover? What meets that need? If God is love, then why is there so much brokenness in human relationships, even ones between Christians? Why do some Christians seem to place such strict limitations on dating? What does God think about sex?

Viewing romance and love through a biblical lens is complex, but they illuminate larger truths about the nature of man and the nature of God. This issue of Logos explores the concept of love through many facets--including art, theology, poetry, advice from married people—but can only makes a dent in its full significance. For if love was the cause and the means through which the greatest mystery of all human history took place, then surely it is an endless concept that we can only attempt to begin unpacking.

Shelly Kim EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

LOVE, SEX, & CHRISTIANITY Fall 2013

TORI CAMPBELL

3

Agape: The Call to True, Radical Love

5

What is God’s Purpose for Romance?

8

On Magic (A Lesson on Love From the Book of Deuteronomy)

CHRIS MATTHEWS

APRIL KOH

RYAN PROCTOR

10

How Far is Too Far? Christian Sexual Ethics Applied to Modern Dating MARKUS BOESL

13

The Cosmic Import of Marriage CHRISTIAN WILLIAMS

14

Love in Spain TRAVIS REGINAL

15

A Passage into the Mind of a Guy LAUREN MORGAN

16

The Writing of Verse

17

Finding Gold in the Dark

19

What do you look for in a girl or guy?

23

Interview with Master Jeffrey Brenzel

24

A Love Story

27

On Marriage

28

Hole in my Chest

31

Book Review: Sex and God at Yale

34

Forgiveness in the Family

36

Leavetaking

JOHN AROUTOUNIAN

THE LOGOS ASKED:

JEANNI HWANG

RICHARD LEE

MICAH MATTHEWS

MADELINE WITT

COURTNEY MCEACHON

CHRISTINA LEE

SHERLYN GALARZA

The Logos 路 Fall 2013

LOVE, SEX, & CHRISTIANITY

Love conquers all. _ True _ False Fall 2013 2

On Topic

Agape: The Call to True, Radical Love TORI CAMPBELL MC ‘16, English “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails…” (I Corinthians 13:4-8) These words have been read at countless weddings, quoted on thousands of dollar-store wall hangings, and featured prominently in at least a few tear-jerking movies such as A Walk to Remember. Frankly, this little passage to the Corinthian church on “true love” seems to have become one of the Bible’s greatest clichés. As with many other passages of the Scripture, however, these words are radically transformed when one takes the time to both understand and apply them.

First, a bit of context: the Greek word for the “love” that Paul describes is somewhat more specific than our English one—which, oddly enough, can describe feelings for anything from mashed potatoes to a spouse of sixty years. It is agape !ਕȖȐʌȘ , which is distinct from the friendly, brotherly love denoted by the word philia ijȚȜtĮ and the traditionally romantic love indicated by the word eros ਩ȡȦȢ . Agape describes love that is independent of circumstance or reciprocation—love that is selfless and can be given undeservedly. It is the love that the Bible says spouses should share between themselves (Ephesians 5:25), that Christians should have for each other (John 13:34), and that God has for us (John 3:16). Agape, quite simply, is love for what is sometimes unlovely.

It can be rather difficult to reconcile this sort of love with much of what we see in Hollywood, as it is easy for most movies to confine love to a “passionate feeling”. Interestingly though, Paul does not define love by the feelings it produces, but by the actions it engenders.

Rather than saying that love makes one feel patient, he says love is patient, something that can be true regardless of whether one is feeling that way. Rather than saying love makes you feel humble, he gives a clear picture of what that humility looks like by saying that love does not boast. Love is what love does. More than a feeling, it is a choice of conduct. In fact, it seems true love can

sometimes be directly opposed to feeling.

That is not to say that true love precludes tender emotion, or passionate romance, or even great sex; the Bible certainly never says that—just read the Song of Solomon. It is simply that, as many longtime friends and long-married couples can attest to, feelings alone cannot be expected to form the basis of any lasting relationship. There must also be a willingness to sacrifice, to compromise, to give of self, even when it may hurt.

Our greatest example in demonstrating such selfless love is unsurprisingly, Jesus, who not only said “greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends”, but later went and did just that when he died to pay our just penalty for sin (John 15:13).

In fact, that very death was the means of reconciling the human race to God in the first place, while we were still His enemies (Romans 5:8). Thus, one could argue that Jesus performed an act of love that was in itself super-human. Furthermore, Jesus apparently forgave the crowds that mocked and beat him as he was in the very process of dying for them (Luke 23:34). The man who lived a completely perfect life loved perfectly and completely, even unto death.

Clearly, this is not a reciprocated love, that the distinctly unique and compassionate Son of God should die to save common, mortal people who hated him. Nor is it a pretty love; it is a love defined by rugged wood and iron nails. It is a life-giving and utterly transformative love. It sums up the law of God (Matthew 22:37-40), eliminates all fear (I John 4:18), trumps any spiritual ability (I Corinthians 12:31), and, as the above passage says, it lasts for eternity. We could not win it, we could not earn it, and we could not deserve it (Ephesians 2:8) That’s the agape. In dying for us, Jesus gives a concrete definition to John’s assertion that, “God is love [agape, once again]” (I John 4:8). The crazy thing is that we are now commanded to show this true, selfless love in our own lives, too.

3

LOVE, SEX, & CHRISTIANITY

“Love is what love does.”

The Logos · Fall 2013

Tori Campbell

MOSAIC OF CHRIST WASHING DISCIPLES’ FEET. FOUND IN MONREALE CATHEDRAL, ITALY.

It is ridiculously easy to rationalize the call to imitate Jesus’ radical love by thinking things such as “if I ever see a lighted grenade around my friends, I will definitely throw myself on it to save them.” There are, however, many more ways to “lay down one’s life” without actually dying. It seems that many people would rather shield someone from an explosion than admit to being wrong in an argument with them. It might sometimes seem easier to give a small fortune to charity than to give five minutes to a venting friend. But as the above verse (I Corinthians 13:7) seems to point toward, love doesn’t just perform grand actions, it performs hard ones, too. The radical aspect of true love is that its sacrifices can seem distinctly unradical.

Perhaps you are thinking, “Well, this all sounds trite/ugly/boring/miserable/untheatrical. If that’s true love, I don’t want it.” I once thought so, too. Ask any anthropologist, you would know that true altruism is not natural. Still, herein lies the great truth at the heart of the promises of Christianity: to give up one thing is to gain something infinitely better. C.S. Lewis calls it a “high paradox”, that the same agape that allows us to love the unlovable allows us to love and greater

4

understand a perfect, all-powerful, God more fully. To love in denial of self is to be filled with the greatest self-fulfillment of all—a sense of the most powerful agape in the universe. Far from being natural; true love is a doorway supernatural.

Unfortunately, if my own conduct is a litmus test, selfless love is incredibly difficult to enact. The constant practice of agape is very high on the list of “Things In Which Tori Does Not Act Like Jesus,” somewhere up there with walking on water. Happily, “we love because he first loved us” (I John 4:19). We can love, and know love, only by God’s power. Agape is a gift, and it is ours for the earnest asking. I pray that we all might come to know the true meaning of love more fully through the lens of the God who created it, because it is so much more than a wall hanging.

Tori Campbell is a sophomore English major in Morse College. Contact her at victoria. campbell@yale.edu.

On Topic

What is God’s Purpose for Romance?

My first experience with the mysterious power of romance came in the sixth grade. There was a girl in my grade who had gone mostly unnoticed by me in previous years. But suddenly and without warning, she began to have a dramatically different effect on me.

Close physical proximity caused unexplained physical reactions: sweaty palms, a racing pulse, and an almost complete incapacity of speech. There were also emotional effects. I was excited at the prospect of her presence, anxious and terrified when she was present, and saddened when I expected her to be present and she was not. It went on for more than two years. It had shocking effects on my life. It filled my thoughts and daydreams and it impacted what I wore, who I wanted as friends, where I wanted to be, even what music I enjoyed. All the while, I had little to no relationship with the object of my romantic obsession and just a superficial knowledge of what she was really like.

Almost every post-pubescent human being can recount their own experience with the mysterious power of the romantic impulse. It is something distinct from physical or sexual attraction, fueled by emotion instead of libido. Philosophers and psychologists have labored to explain the origin and purpose of the romantic impulse. In Plato’s Symposium, six Athenian philosophers discuss it while praising the deity Eros. Aristophanes proposes that humans are descended from beings with spherical torsos that were split in two by the gods, and the romantic impulse is a desire to return to the original form. Socrates proposes that the romantic impulse must be a result of a lack of being, specifically the lack of beauty. For much of the 20th century, the Oedipal theories of Sigmund Freud dominated thought about the source of both romantic and sexual impulses among psychologists. Other psychologists, such as René Girard, argued against Freudian theories, proposing the source of the romantic impulse is instead rivalry and jealousy as individuals observe attraction between others. There have also been more utilitarian explanations for romance.

Arthur Schopenhauer tracks the romantic impulse to simply the will-to-live impulse that leads to a desire to produce attractive progeny. Still others, such as former Yale professor Robert Sternberg, see the romantic impulse as merely a basic combination of “liking” and the sexual impulse.

As made explicitly clear in the example of Aristophanes, any theory about the origin and purpose of the romantic impulse is highly dependent on one’s understanding of the origin and purpose of human beings as a whole. If human beings are the product of chance, unguided natural processes and there exists no real purpose for human existence other than survival, then the theories of Freud and Girard might seem the most convincing. If each human being establishes their own sense of purpose from their own perspectives and heritage, then the discussion of universal meaning or purpose for the romantic impulse is precluded.

In which case the utilitarian and simplistic perspectives of Schopenhauer or Sternberg might be all there is to say. However, if human beings are the purposeful creation of God, then the purpose of the romantic impulse must find its genesis in God’s larger purpose for human beings.

In the book of Genesis, God creates man and woman in His own image. He charges them to be fruitful and multiply, filling, subduing and ruling over the earth. This charge, commonly called the cultural mandate, and this intended state of being in the image of God, combine to establish a basic purpose for human existence - that is to reflect the true nature of God while carrying out the cultural mandate. God’s purpose for human existence cannot be reduced to merely a function, filling and ruling over the earth. The manner in which that function is conducted must display the true expression of God. The purpose also cannot be reduced to just a proper state of being, being in the image of God. That proper state of being must find its expression through the proper function of humanity, filling and ruling over the earth.

5

LOVE, SEX, & CHRISTIANITY

CHRIS MATTHEWS Yale Faith and Action Ministry Fellow

The Logos · Fall 2013

Chris Matthews

If human beings are the purposeful creation of God, everything in human experience can only be rightly understood, and therefore rightly used and enjoyed, when grounded in an understanding of the purpose of God for humanity— which is displaying His glory through fulfilling His mandate. The romantic impulse is no exception. As part of common human experience, the romantic impulse must somehow aid in both knowing and displaying God through fulfilling the cultural mandate. So, how does it do that? First and most obviously, the romantic impulse serves as one of the motivating forces towards a union that produces children when it is directed at its proper object, a person of the opposite sex. Because we live in a world marred by the effects of every person failing to live according to God’s purpose, the romantic impulse is not always directed at its proper object. Producing children is a necessary part of humanity fulfilling the cultural mandate. Our romantic impulse, as our sexual impulses, move us towards that action.

However, if it were only rooted in motivating human reproduction, the romantic impulse would seem superfluous since the sexual impulse would seem a sufficient motivator. The unique purpose for the romantic impulse can only be discovered by also considering how the relationship between a man and a woman displays God’s nature or glory. When God created man, He said that it was not good for the man to be alone and the search began for a suitable helper for him in fulfilling His purpose. The search ended through God making the woman who was taken from the man, equally made in God’s image, but made in a distinct way to be a proper compliment to the man in fulfilling God’s purpose. The man and woman were designed to come together, reforming as one whole, the two becoming one flesh in the covenant relationship of marriage.

This unity of two distinct persons serves to display the true nature of God in ways that individual human beings cannot. One way is through marriage as a one flesh union of two distinct persons which reflects the triune nature of God who is also a unity of distinct persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Though a man and a woman can produce children outside marriage, it will not function to reflect the unity of distinct persons in the Trinity without the context of a permanent one flesh union. Marriage also uniquely displays God’s love for human beings. In the complete surrender of themselves to each other and the selfless consideration of the good of the other ahead of their own, a married couple enact a dramatization of the sacrificial love of God for His people that led Him to send His own Son, Jesus Christ, to lay down His life for them. In his letter to the Ephesians, Paul identifies this display of God’s loving pursuit of human beings who would become His through covenant relationship as the raison d’être for marriage. The mystery, now revealed through Jesus, is that marriage has always been about displaying Jesus Christ and his love for His

bride, the church.

In light of the centrality of marriage in fulfilling God’s purpose for humanity, the romantic impulse provides something that the sexual impulse does not.

The sexual impulse seeks sexual fulfillment, but the romantic impulse seeks a person. It serves a unique role in drawing together a man and a woman as distinct persons in a way that sexual desire does not. In some instances, the romantic impulse can even serve to keep the sexual impulse in check, discouraging the pursuit of sexual fulfillment in ways that would disregard the romantic object.

“The sexual impulse seeks sexual fulfillment, but the romantic impulse seeks a person.”

In God’s design, romance always serves marriage, both in drawing human beings towards marriage and as a part of marital satisfaction. For romance is not just an impulse, but also a satisfying reward. If romance ever ceases to serve marriage and becomes an end in itself, its connection to God’s purpose for humanity is severed. It is then likely to become a destructive power instead of an impetus towards meaningful existence.

Romance is a useful motivator when used to serve its proper end, but it is a terrible guide. Orphaned from its higher purpose, it becomes mere sentimentality that will never display God’s nature and inspire sacrificial love instead of the pursuit of self-interest.

Twenty years after my first experience with romance, I had my last. There was another girl who began to produce similar emotional and life-altering effects on my life. This time I was caught less unaware and overcame fear to pursue a relationship with her.

More importantly, I had learned the proper purpose for these powerful feelings. They were intended to motivate me towards sacrificial love in the covenant of marriage. They were not to be trusted as a guide or pursued for self-fulfillment through indulgent sentimentality or unrequited pining. They were to inspire me to love another so sacrificially, so completely, and so permanently that it would display the greatness of God’s own love for His people and to surrender my own rights so completely to her that we would seem one unified whole. I pursued that girl with those purposes as my goal and romance found its proper end in my life, a marriage that hopes to display God and His love in a world where He is hidden.

Chris Matthews is the Ministry Director at Yale Faith and Action: An Undergraduate Organization.

6

LOVE, SEX, & CHRISTIANITY

ADRIAN KIMMOK BK ‘15, Economics

7

On Magic APRIL KOH TD ‘14, Sociology

The Logos · Fall 2013

Perhaps in the modern world we do not believe in sorcerers or witchcraft. But we do know what Taylor Swift means when she says that she was “enchanted” to meet you. Magic and sorcery have not left this world. We experience magic in modern love.

Perks of Being a Wallflower, a film based on the book

by Stephen Chbosky, ends with this beautiful, tumblr-favorite voice-over by the main character, Charlie (Logan Lerman): “This is happening, I am here and I am looking at her. And she is so beautiful. I can see it.

This one moment when you know you’re not a sad story. You are alive, and you stand up and see the lights on the buildings and everything that makes you wonder. And you’re listening to that song and that drive with the people you love most in this world. And in this moment I swear, we are infinite.”

The monologue contains two main ideas: the idea of “infinity” (a secular reiteration of the religious notion of “eternity”) and “her”—his crush, Sam (Emma Watson). The closing lines not only juxtapose but also conflate the supernatural and the romantic, for Charlie jumps abruptly from his love for Sam “she is so beautiful,” into describing his “moment” of feeling “infinite.” It is as though Charlie does not need to justify the connection between the “infinite” and his feelings for Sam; to Charlie, perhaps, the two are so obviously and intimately connected. Maybe Charlie does not think that romantic love is what saves him and makes him “infinite,” but he uses terms that connote the supernatural or the divine in order to describe his feelings of being in love. He assumes that the magic of the moment – signified by the “lights on the buildings” and the perfect song – is connected or even equivalent to divine goodness, because the magic feels so good. By assuming that magic and the divine are connected, Charlie implicitly asks: how could God (a.k.a. “infinity”) not be part of a thoroughly magical moment? Thus, the movie ends with the following feel-good implication: the divine is always found in the happiest, magical, beautiful moments in life.

the consent of the supernatural force of the universe, a.k.a. fate or God. It is indeed hard to believe that God’s good hand is absent in an encounter so strong and seemingly supernatural. The perceived goodness of magic drives Hollywood to continue to capture and sell magical romances through the perfect shot of a man’s steady gaze, the lush romantic film score, or the witty and unnaturally fluid dialogue in the impeccably orchestrated meet-cute. The Notebook, How I Met Your Mother, and even Taylor Swift all seek to convince us that magic saves, that magical romance is the supernatural mark of true love, and that love without magic is powerless. The gospel of Hollywood – Hollywood’s conception of the “infinite” – is the ultimate magical romantic relationship: the magical encounter is the ultimate signifier of the divine and will deliver you from feeling like a “sad story.”

“The divine is always found in the happiest, magical, beautiful moments in life.”

The Hollywood gospel is easily translated into Christian lingo. For example, it is easy to think: The circumstances seem to be so perfect that they must be God-ordained. The man understands me so completely and unusually that God must have created us for one another. The feeling is near any religious experience I’ve had – it must be a miracle. I don’t know how to describe this feeling in ordinary terms. It feels so right. It is easy for Christians to connect surprising and unusually strong romantic chemistry to God and His plan—even in relationships that are ultimately distance one from the love of Christ.

But what does the Bible say about magic? Is magic always the work of God? “If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” you must not listen to the

The above message is common in Hollywood.

Magic—the electric (often sexual) pull between two people—is popularly considered to be a manifestation of the Divine; magic seems possible only with

8

(A Lesson On Love From the Book of Deuteronomy) words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul” (Deuteronomy 13:1-3).

One might object that this passage is irrelevant to the discussion of romantic love, for this passage in Deuteronomy addresses dreams and actual works of magic that are somewhat obscure in the modern world. Perhaps, though, “signs” and “wonders” include any seemingly supernatural occurrence, and romance, as silly as it may seem, can seem like a supernatural experience. “Magic” is not a merely hyperbolic expression for some when they use it to describe their romances.

Perks of Being a Wallflower has become an anthem for introverted romantics; the happiness and the supposed redemption of Charlie and Sam at the end of the film convinces its viewers that the Charlie’s experience of love is ideal. The idea of a magical love that makes one feel “infinite,” saved, and in touch with the supernatural is indeed appealing, but the book of Deuteronomy seem to rigidly separate magical signs and wonders from God’s will; they emphasize that magic can sometimes distance us from the One who truly saves. In a world where perfect romantic love – or maybe just perfect sex – is sometimes esteemed above all else and tied thoughtlessly and automatically to the supernatural, Christians should be more wary of the mysteries and novelties of magical romantic encounters, for not all magic is of God. Ultimately, Christians do not need to place much value in magic, whether they be fantastic wonders, prophetic dreams, or ecstatic romance, for those who place their faith in Christ experience the supreme magic of the resurrection of Christ and his magical, miraculous romance with the Church, his Bride.*

One might also cringe at the citing of Deuteronomy, which can stir controversy when quoted out of context. One can, however, make some important and more general observations about the relationship between God and magic. First, Moses states that inexplicable signs and wonders – which arguably characterize the modern-day Hollywood romance with, for example, Charlie’s romantic night drive with the bright “lights on buildings” – are not always from God. The state of feeling “infinite” therefore is not necessarily from God. Second, Moses provides the Israelites with a way to discern whether to trust certain “signs” or “wonders”: if the worker of magic leads one away from the Lord and encourages the worship of other gods and idols, then the magic is not to be trusted. If the magical romantic encounter leads to a relationship that leads one away from the Lord and towards the idolatry of sex, money, beauty, or even the beloved, then the magic is not to be trusted.

April Koh is a senior Sociology major in Timothy Dwight College.

And third, magic can simply be a test; intense romantic attraction towards another person can simply be a test of how much we love God. Though romantic love – when it helps us to serve the Lord and exhibit Christ’s love – can be wonderful and godly, our boyfriends and girlfriends can become idols in our lives and therefore compete with the Lord for our love and devotion. By stating that the Lord “tests” our love, Moses implicitly reminds the Israelites that they should “love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.”

And why should they? Because the magic – the miracles, the power to save, the unimaginable glory – of the Lord is greater than any other source of magic, and it is only sensible to love Him and only Him.

*Jesus Christ calls the Church his Bride: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless” (Ephesians 5:25-27).

9

LOVE, SEX, & CHRISTIANITY

“Magic can simply be a test; intense romantic attraction towards another person can simply be a test of how much we love God.”

On Topic

How Far Is Too Far? Christian Sexual Ethics Applied to Modern Dating The Logos · Fall 2013

RYAN PROCTOR SY ‘15, Classics

How far is too far? What are the appropriate boundaries of physical intimacy for an unmarried couple? Why is it important to have boundaries at all? The answers to these questions have been obscured in our modern hyper-sexualized era, which declares good any action so long as it occurs between (or among!) consenting adults.

Even for Christians and others who recognize the value in refraining from sex until marriage, discerning precisely between healthy affection and immoral behavior remains difficult. It is nevertheless possible for unmarried couples to determine proper and practicable ways to express intimacy chastely, provided they have a proper understanding of the value and purpose of sex.

Christianity is often accused of holding a low opinion of sex and of repressing healthy sexuality. Nothing could be further from the truth! It is precisely because Christianity values sex so highly that it places such strict safeguards around sexuality. The libertine sees only an emotionally satisfying act which one can perform with even a stranger met on the same night. The Christian sees a sacred union of love: man and woman “become one flesh”[1] and are thereby able to partake in the act of creation, to create offspring in their own image,[2] just as God created man in His own image.[3] In the act of sex, a man and woman mirror the Trinity. God the Father loves and gives Himself fully to Jesus the Son, and from the love between Father and Son proceeds the Holy Spirit. A husband quite literally gives himself fully to his wife in sex, and from their union proceeds the life of a newly conceived child. Through this imitation of the Holy Trinity and divine creation, the act of sex in marriage is perhaps the closest experience of God available to men and women in their daily lives other than the Eucharist; it provides “a certain foretaste of the pinnacle of our existence, of that beatitude for which our whole being yearns.”[4] Without the full commitment of marriage

and openness to new life, a man and a woman do not fully give themselves to each other in the act of sex. Thus, sex outside of marriage is so grave an offense not because sex is something evil or inherently wrong, but because it is using an act of love that is a reflection of God as tool for fleeting self-gratification.

“Without the full commitment of marriage and openness to new life, a man and a woman do not fully give themselves to each other in the act of sex.”

The consequences of this debasement of sex are disastrous at both individual and societal levels. That human beings have both bodies and souls is an essential part of their nature; the body is not simply a robot that the soul or the mind inhabits. Therefore, to give oneself physically in the act of sex without giving oneself spiritually in the love and commitment of marriage is to effectively tell a lie with one’s body and is destructive of true love and healthy commitment. It should come as no wonder that, at least in my observations, those who engage in premarital sex tend to be in more volatile relationships, less likely to marry, and more likely to divorce.

Moreover, when relationships involving casual sex end in breakup, the physical attachment that resulted from sex will cause the breakup to be all the more painful and difficult. On the societal level, higher levels of

10

How Far Is Too Far? whole self will always be unsatisfactory. Of course, this does not mean that it is entirely impossible to indulge in some erotic behavior while staying within a strict limit, but one can only accomplish this by a herculean exertion of will and frustrating one’s own desires. Critics of Christianity who misunderstand its vision of sex claim that it leads to repression, but this, to arouse one’s desires only to fight them and leave them unfulfilled, is the true repression. The sexual passions are like a river with an extremely rapid current: it is possible to stand fixed at a single point in the river without being swept away, but it is difficult, hazardous, and unpleasant to do so. Why fight so strongly, endure such great interior conflict and frustration, and risk so much for so little a reward as incomplete physical pleasure?

“Sex is the complete giving of self, and therefore to yield to desire while refraining from giving one’s whole self will always be unsatisfactory.”

Erotic behavior outside of marriage is particularly damaging to men’s psyches and leads to the ill-treatment of women. Men, particularly when they are young, tend to have much stronger libidos than women; men push women’s sexual boundaries much more frequently than women do men’s. As C. S. Lewis once observed, “If a healthy young man indulged his sexual appetite whenever he felt inclined, and if each act produced a baby, then in ten years he might easily populate a small village.”[5] Yielding, even partially, to their sexual desires outside of marriage frequently causes men to experience more difficulty in maintaining limits, be haunted constantly with unrealistic sexual images and fantasies, view women as sexual objects, and engage in destructive self-centered habits, such as masturbation.

Pope Paul VI warned in 1968 that “a man who grows accustomed to” indulging his sexual appetite for his own pleasure “may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.”[6] The increased sexualization of women in film, television, advertising, and song lyrics and the death of chivalry over the past several decades have validated Paul VI’s grim warning and demonstrated the negative consequences of yielding to sexual passions for men and women.

If unmarried couples are to refrain from all actions that excite or indulge sexual passions, what remains then? May Christians couples only hug? side-hug? shake hands and say, “Peace be with you” at church?

Are all forms of physical intimacy or contact before marriage immoral? Of course not. To be human is to be

11

LOVE, SEX, & CHRISTIANITY

premarital sex have led to a sharp increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births and single parents, making it more difficult to successfully raise a new generation of children.

Because the Christian’s understanding of sex is essentially different from the libertine’s, his approach to all sexual behavior must be essentially different from the libertine’s. The prohibition on premarital sex is not just an arbitrary boundary; he is not free to engage in any sexual behavior so long as he does not actually have sex. Unfortunately, the popular language of personal “limits” and “boundaries” is a product of this mistaken outlook. Even asking, “How far is too far?” is asking the wrong question; what that question really asks is, “How much can I get away with?” or “How sexual can I get short of having sex?” The Christian vision of sex does not simply draw a circle around sexuality within which it is perfectly acceptable to go nuts so long as one does not step out of it. This vision of sex does not merely lessen the degree to which an unmarried couple may yield to their sexual passions. Rather, it pushes them to recognize that any surrender to erotic desire at all (even short of sex itself ) lowers and distorts sex from its true purpose of the union of husband and wife in imitation of the Holy Trinity, and it calls on them to tame their desires for their proper function, not be ruled by them.

To adopt the common baseball metaphor of sexual behavior (where “first base” refers to making out, “second base” to fondling breasts, etc.), Christianity does not say to the unmarried couple, “Feel free to take a swing, but stop at second base,” but “Do not even step up to the plate.”

Unmarried couples must therefore refrain from all activities yielding to and exciting sexual passions for the same reasons they must avoid premarital sex. The intentions of a couple making out or groping each other’s private parts are not fundamentally different from those of a couple engaging in premarital sex. Both are using forms of physical intimacy for physical (and emotional) gratification instead of an expression of love in marriage. Both couples are sending a message of unity and causing attachment with their bodies while avoiding the commitment necessary to make that union a reality. While just groping is obviously not the same as sex, the difference in the negative consequences of the two actions for an unmarried couple is a difference of degree, not a qualitative difference. Erotic behavior short of sex outside of marriage is a smaller step in the wrong direction than premarital sex, but a step in the wrong direction nevertheless.

It is not possible for unmarried couples to engage in erotic behavior without eventually giving in completely to their sexual desires or painfully repressing them. The physical pleasures derived from erotic behavior have a natural climax in sex; until one gives in to one’s desires completely, there is always something wanting, a greater pleasure to be had, a logical next step. When one is standing on first base, it is only natural to turn one’s gaze to second base, when on second base to third base, and so on. The body’s appetite for sexual pleasure can never be fully satisfied until it reaches climax, especially in men. Sex is the complete giving of self, and therefore to yield to desire while refraining from giving one’s

The Logos · Fall 2013

Ryan Proctor both physical and spiritual, and people express intimacy physically in all their close relationships, not just romantic ones. Mothers and fathers kiss their children, siblings hug each other, and friends put their arms over each other’s shoulders. St. Paul ends many of his epistles with the command to “[g]reet one another with a holy kiss.”[7] Moreover, just as mothers express affection to their children in a uniquely motherly way, so too lovers express affection to each other in a uniquely romantic way. This romantic affection does not need to indulge the sexual appetite; it would be a sad worldview indeed that claimed that the only intimacy that could possibly occur between lovers is sexual intimacy. Holding hands and simple kisses on the lips do not arouse or indulge sexual passions the way making out or other more intimate physical actions do, yet they are still meaningful and beautiful expressions of intimacy. The difference between romantic affection and erotic behavior is a real, meaningful, and definite distinction, one that is clearer to notice when considered from the perspective of a young child. Children know of romantic love, but they know nothing of sex. They are well aware that lovers kiss, hold hands, and put their arms around each other, but they are completely ignorant of making out or groping. This perspective demonstrates that simple kissing, holding hands, and other such actions are qualitatively different from premarital sex, groping, making out, and other erotic behavior and are healthy expressions of physical intimacy for unmarried couples.

It is crucial that unmarried couples recognize the distinction between non-sexual kissing and sexual kissing, i.e. making out, the first base on the field of sexual behavior. A significant number of Christian couples avoid kissing before marriage altogether. Their commitment to sexual purity is admirable, though kissing can be a good and healthy way for couples to express affection. Making out is kissing with erotic passion, in a way that arouses and to a certain extent gratifies the sexual appetite. It is a prolonged activity performed for the same reasons as the rest of the bases are (though some to a lesser degree than others), and it often involves using the tongue and kissing the neck or other sensitive areas of the body. A simple romantic kiss possesses none of these qualities. Kissing is obviously not inherently sexual. Mothers kiss their babies, after all.

Though making out is a form of kissing, it is qualitatively different from a simple romantic kiss. To again appeal to the perspective of a young child, a child imagining lovers kissing does not envision anything near making out. Whereas making out expresses a low, carnal, and lustful desire, different kinds of romantic kisses can beautifully express meaningful affection: a chivalrous kiss on the hand demonstrates the respect and admiration a gentleman has for his lady, a kiss on the forehead provides reassurance in a troubling time and demonstrates caring, and a kiss on the cheek or lips can innocently express romantic intimacy and endearment.

While making out brings out low sexual desires, simple romantic kisses are a healthy outlet for an unmarried couple to express their admiration and affection for each other.

Though non-sexual romantic physical intimacy is

good, couples should nevertheless display it with reason and in moderation. Just as acquaintances who met a week ago generally do not hug as often as friends who grew up together, so too a couple on a first date should not be as physically intimate as a couple that has been dating for a year. If a particular action or set of circumstances, even if it is not inherently wrong, causes too much temptation to engage in erotic behavior for a couple, that couple should avoid it. If a couple cannot trust themselves to be alone in a bedroom together or kiss without exciting and yielding to desire, even though neither being in a bedroom nor kissing is wrong in itself, they should avoid bedrooms and kissing. As Jesus says, “If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.”[8] In Plato’s Phaedrus, Socrates likens the human soul to a two-horsed chariot. The horses represent the appetites and the passions, while the charioteer represents reason. At the sight of a soul’s beloved, if the charioteer does not maintain proper control over the horses, the appetitive horse lurches after the beloved for its own gratification. However, if the charioteer keeps the horses in check, the love between the souls of the lover and the beloved causes both to sprout wings, and the charioteers of the two souls are able to guide the movement of their horses toward heaven, where they participate in a blissful eternal procession of the divine. Though Plato and Socrates lived about four centuries before Christ, their vision of sex and love is not far from Christianity’s. Love and sex are not supposed to be minefields of sin and temptation fraught with peril. Provided we tame and control our appetites and passions like the horses of Socrates’ chariot, erotic love and the sacred union of sex can lead us upward to God. The self-giving love between husband and wife is a reflection of the very nature of God. After all, “God is love.”[9] Ryan Proctor is a junior Classics major in Saybrook College.

[1] Gn 2:24 (NIV 1984) [2] See Gn 5:3 [3] See Gn 1:26 [4] Benedict XVI. Deus Caritas Est. §4 [5] Lewis, C. S. Mere Christianity. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2000 (1952). p. 96.

[6] Paul VI. Humanae Vitae. §17.

[7] Rom 16:16; 1 Cor 16:20; 2 Cor 13:12; 1 Thes 5:26 (NIV 1984) [8] Mt 18:8 (NIV 1984) [9] 1 Jn 4:16 (NIV 1984)

12

On Topic

The Cosmic Import of Marriage The Bible is bookended by weddings. The first several chapters of Genesis detail the Creation of the world centered on a pair of human individuals, Adam and Eve, ostensibly the first married couple. The last several chapters of Revelation detail the wedding feast of the Lamb and his Bride (the Church). It is also no coincidence that in John, Jesus’s first miracle is at a wedding.

The Bible treats marriage as a representation of a deeper reality of the way God relates to Himself and His people. The Church as the Bride of Christ is not a metaphor drawn from cultural usage, much as Jesus’s command to become Fishers of Men does not merely use a facet of culture and spiritualize it. This view, though, has it exactly backwards. It is not that the Bible, looking for a something to describe a cosmic reality uses human marriage as an illustration for greater cosmic truths, but that human marriage itself is designed to be a reflection of a greater cosmic reality. Human marriage is a model, however imperfect, of the ultimate, deeper reality of marriage.

Marriage models the relationship of God to Himself. Trinitarian theology, however challenging it may be to understand, holds that God is three persons, yet one being. The early church fathers used the term perichoresis (from Greek: lit: dancing around) to describe the relationship of the Trinity to itself. The significance of this is that the very concept of relationship is contained within the nature of God Himself. This is true of any relationship, but particularly in the marriage relationship. The love given by the persons of the Trinity to each other, and in which believers are welcomed (John 17), is the model for marriage.

The Old Testament constantly refers to Israel as an unfaithful wife, i.e., that the covenant was somehow violated by the action of Israel in turning away from God to pursue other things. Hosea offers the paradigmatic example of this as the prophet Hosea is told by God to take a wife who is unfaithful. Hosea’s pursuit of an unfaithful wife represents the attitude of God towards His people. Marriage is a human representation of the deep covenant establishing the love of God towards His people.

In the New Testament, we see this relationship of God and His people taking a specific form, namely the relationship between Christ and his Church.

Paul, in an oft-cited passage in Ephesians spells out this relationship: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word and to present her to himself as a radiant Church… holy and blameless.” (3:25-27). Marriage is not presented as a metaphor through which we better understand the relationship of Christ and the Church, but human marriage is an instantiation of the ultimate reality of Christ and the Church.

This cosmic truth is finally dramatically revealed in Revelation, as the people of God, who are no longer unfaithful but made perfect by the blood of the Lamb on the cross, are the Church, the Bride of Christ. In sweeping language, Revelation presents imagery of the ultimate consummation of history as the marriage of Christ and his Church.

Of course, topics such as the Trinitarian nature of God, the relationship between Christ, the Lamb, and his Church, are mysterious and, to a certain extent, ineffable. However, it is important to recognize that human marriage in the Bible is a representation of greater cosmic realities, not a mere human institution.

“Marriage models the relationship of God to Himself.”

Markus Boesl is a senior Philosophy major in Timothy Dwight College.

Secondly, marriage is designed to model the relationship of God to His people. One of the primary ways in which this is so is that God makes covenants with His people. Perhaps the most pivotal is the Abrahamic covenant. That is, God enters into relationships with His people that entail promises.

13

LOVE, SEX, & CHRISTIANITY

MARKUS BOESL TD ‘14, Philosophy

On Topic

Love in Spain

The Logos · Fall 2013

CHRISTIAN WILLIAMS TD ‘14, Global Affairs To steal a disclaimer from Marc Webb’s 500 Days of Summer, this is not a love story.

After turning down an invitation to boteón (illegal public pre-gaming) I thought I’d kissed my chance for Spanish friends goodbye. In Madrid, partying is the extracurricular and while there are few things I love more than a good nightclub, I draw the line at illegal activity. Two days later I met Eduardo Rodriguez*, a student whose girlfriend was majoring in the same subject I was. Three days later, it was Saturday night, the dining hall was closed in anticipation of most students who went out to eat with friends, and I was resigned to a long evening alone. Much to my surprise, Eduardo not only invited me to dine with his group of friends, but also packaged the invitation with a pre-dinner tour of Madrid.

After a three-hour tour I was thoroughly dazzled not only by the city sites but also by Eduardo’s tall, extremely attractive, architecture-major friend who seemed to know the name, artistic nuances, and history of every single building we passed. It was a fleeting thought, however, because I knew one thing for sure: I was not one of those silly girls who ran off to a foreign country looking for love.

Walking beside Antonio* (the architecture expert) later that night, I felt an instant connection that I was struggling to articulate. Despite my broken Spanish, Antonio understood me immediately and taught me a Spanish maxim: “Dios los cría y ellos se juntan” which loosely translates to “God created them and they come together”. It means that those who have similar characteristics, ways of thinking, and passions will find each other sooner or later. So even though I was American and he was Spanish, and although we could barely understand each other, the similarities we shared beneath our superficial differences had brought us together.

Over the next few months, Antonio and I found that we shared much in common: a love for music, underground rock concerts, and touching movies. We exchanged our favorite songs and danced salsa together at a hipster nightclub. He insisted I wear his jacket when it was cold and I had forgotten mine, told me his dream of building houses in India for the homeless, and together we stayed up until 2AM watching movies even though both of us were catching a bus the next day and needed to pack. But the closer we grew, the more evident an uncomfortable problem became: while part of me really wanted to be more than friends with him, there was just one thing missing . . . Antonio was not a Christian.

Four months later it was my last day in Madrid, Antonio had woken up early to see me off, and we had finally escaped the company of the rest of our friends. As we stood alone in the cool air of an early Madrid morning, my eyes were on him but my thoughts were in the clouds.

When no more stalling could possibly be done, he leaned down and kissed me once on each cheek--the Spanish

14

way of saying both hello and goodbye.

As I sat on the plane headed back to the US, I remember praying, “God, if this guy wasn’t the one… then where the heck is he?” In reality, things with Antonio had not been ideal. But I feared what I think many Christians fear at some point --that what God has cannot possibly be better than what we’ve left behind. When I returned to the States, I told people about a dashing Spaniard who had swept me off my feet. However, I didn’t tell them about how one day we would chatter like magpies, and the next day he would be cold and hardly look at me. I didn’t tell them that he consistently lied to others about his love life and justified it by claiming he enjoyed “messing with people.” I didn’t tell them that he mysteriously canceled on me when I came to visit him in his home town. I didn’t tell them that, despite our compatibilities in other areas, our perspectives on love could not have been any more different.

II Corinthians 6:14-18 extols Christians to not be “unequally yoked with unbelievers” and is usually understood to imply that Christians should not be romantically involved with non-Christians. It’s a controversial verse and many view it as an anal, exclusive restriction. In the end, I didn’t date Antonio, largely because I figured God wouldn’t approve. However, as time passed bringing with it the inevitable clarity of hindsight, something crazy happened, and begrudging obedience started becoming a revelation of God’s love. I starting realizing that what I thought was good for me would have been not only unhealthy but also less than the kind of love I had hoped for. Most of us are pretty good at seeing the truth in hindsight, but this skill is of little help when we’re caught up in a heated moment. What I’ve realized is that the less feelgood parts of the Bible (i.e. commandments) are still an expression of God’s love. Not only that, but they give us clarity in the present that the human condition precludes.

It’s not easy believing in God’s best when we think we can do pretty well on our own. But God has something better for each of us than “good enough”. And as far as love goes, I believe that God is just as into chemistry and romance as we are, so we don’t have to fear that God’s plan will be somehow less “exhilarating” or “fulfilling”.

Instead, we can be confident in God’s love and assured while we wait for His best.

As I said, this is not a love story. But when mine is written, I pray that God will be the author.

Christian Williams is a senior Global Affairs major in Timothy Dwight College. *names have been changed to protect the right to privacy of my friends

A PASSAGE INTO THE MIND OF A GUY *PICK OUT A STEREOTYPE AND EXPLORE IT* TRAVIS REGINAL BK ‘16, Sociology

1) Guys are known for being controlling; we often want to feel in charge. However, if you can cause a guy to change his plans or cause him to do something he definitely does not enjoy doing, then that is a pretty strong sign he is interested.

2) A guy that is into you will do things that are quite embarrassing, but the thought of you gives him the temporary courage to do so. For example, if he approaches you while you’re with a bunch of other girls to talk to you or give you something, he is definitely sweating bullets inside, and such an act is to be commended. I mentioned someone I liked in my graduation speech, an insanely bold move that

leaves no room for doubt, but such an occurrence is rare. A guy also would not mind mentioning you to other girls as well.

3) If a guy is interested he will make efforts to simply know more about you. This is self-evident but often overlooked. Conversations would not be so focused on him, and he will use some of the things about you to draw your attention to upcoming events, or simply talk about your interests. He might also take note of subtleties, such as the color of your eyes, or your favorite pair of earrings.

4) Most importantly, a guy that is truly interested in you will make strides (and several attempts at that) to arrange time for you to be together. Sure he has a million things calling for his attention, but he considers spending time with you as one of the most important things he could possibly be doing at the moment.

Maybe you think the guys I’ve described above don’t exist, but they do. Beneath the desire in guys to talk to as many girls as possible, lies an even greater desire to find one that makes even the most cold-hearted of people pause and say “wow, she is special,” for “it is not good for man to be alone” (Genesis 2:18). There was a reason God took an extra day to create woman; He wanted his greatest creation to have an unforgettable entrance into this world.

Simply assure the guy that you’re genuinely interested in him. Guys are in touch with their emotions, but the world has made it difficult for them to display them. If they truly care about you, they will break the restrictions that society has placed on them and open up to you. It is a matter of time, patience, and prayer. You are God’s beloved daughter, and God wants the best for you, even in your love life. It is important to allow God to lead you in this area so that you don’t miss out on something truly special.

Maybe some of the items I’ve listed above seem more fitted for a fairytale, but the guy for you, that guy who is really interested in who you are and taking care of your heart, will do whatever it takes to make this fairytale a reality.

Travis Reginal is a sophomore Sociology major in Berkeley College.

15

LOVE, SEX, & CHRISTIANITY

It never ceases to amaze me. There is this constant, nagging question as to what the opposite gender is thinking. No matter the level of intellect, no matter the amount of power, everyone is on a quest to find the “right one.” But despite the age-old stereotype that young people just want to tinker with romance, many still want someone they can call their own. This stems from the very way that God created man and woman; we are a pair to a whole, meant to be in fellowship with Christ, as Adam in Genesis 2: 23 says, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman’, for she was taken out of man.”

For women, the question might be, “how can I be sure that he is into me?” While I profess that I am not an expert, I can still offer pieces of insight that somewhat demystify the question of whether a guy is truly interested in you or not. The following pieces hints stem from my prior experience with courting someone the “traditional way” (starting out simply as friends with the person you like). I believe that this method is aligned with many principles in I Corinthians 13:4-7, “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.” It is easy to think that the Bible simply advocates for some kind of intangible, abstract feeling, but I believe that this love is possible if we genuinely get to know people simply because we desire to know them, and without hidden agendas. For me, approaching dating is similar to sharing the gospel; it should not be your only focus when talking to someone. If something more springs out of a friendship, then what follows will be more stable, as it is rooted in a tangible friendship (Colossians 2:7).

The Writing of Verse

The Logos · Fall 2013

LAUREN MORGAN Yale Alumnus ‘13, English

MAN My eyes were opened only yesterday And filled with wonder from the very start, My bones and blood transformed from dust and clay, My Lord’s own love inside this beating heart.

The air that fills these lungs is fresh and clean To fuel my mornings caring for the park, The grass between these toes is silken green, A bed for peaceful nights beneath the dark.

He brought me friends, that I could choose a pair, From big to small, I gave them each a name.

But none were answer to my secret prayer: To have a partner, almost quite the same.

Tonight from sleep, a twinge draws me awake— My perfect dream replaced by slithering snake.

WOMAN I found him sleeping underneath a tree And thought him handsome, though to what compared?

His skin was soft, his breathing deep and free, I squatted for a while and simply stared Upon this man to whom I would be paired.

The garden is quite quiet in the night I’d race into the darkness if I dared Under the moon, oh what a lovely sight, This new-formed woman dancing without fright.

I spy a serpent crawling out to play Oh, wait for me! I laugh, my head feels light, Forgetting fear, I chase and fly away.

No rules to hold me back or slow my feet, I’ll sing and shout before I stop to eat.

16

Finding Gold in the Dark !"#$%&'"()*"($*&$

JE ‘15, Ethics, Politics, & Economics

17

How good writers must have had it three hundred years ago.

How wonderful it must have felt to pen books and essays regarding emotion with abandon, unafraid – or, at least, less so – of the damning critique of unoriginality. Having your thoughts labeled “cliché” is in many ways more stinging than the charge of plagiarism: in the latter instance, you are accused of foolishly stealing something good and proudly calling it your own; in the former, you are accused of proudly calling something your own and foolishly thinking it was good. But it seems everything has become cliché. As someone somewhere has surely already noted, even the realization that most of your mental output is flimflam that people “in touch” with reality came across on the Internet ages ago is itself a cliché.

As a consequence, countless young men and women considering themselves to be among the “in touch” literati have seemingly concluded that they have nothing new to say about love, let alone a smorgasbord of other anchors of human sentimentality and behavior. Indeed, it is at least largely a consequence of the information onslaught of the last several decades that we “come across” more and more, yet know less and less. To talk of love in the context of loyalty, responsibility, and any sense of permanence in college is so embarrassing nowadays, so childish – few think themselves apt to make any sort of contribution to such a discussion, and scoff at others who try.

Abandoning, even temporarily, the notion of finding personal meaningfulness within timeless aspects of the human condition is not only destructive and contrary to the dignity of the individual, but a direct affront to the spirit of Christian purpose. Confining our discussion to love, a languishing hope in finding something uniquely beautiful in our relationships with others leads to the confusing (and often fruitless) endeavor involving “finding your own meaning.” Because we aren’t aimless blobs of jelly floating

LOVE, SEX, & CHRISTIANITY

Testimonies

John Aroutiounian

The Logos · Fall 2013

around in the universe, and were created with dignity and express purpose, the search for meaning in those who reject the universality of purpose in each individual takes all sorts of twists and turns. Countless friends have told me about their experiences dabbling in all sorts of religions, taking up new causes, and retrofitting personal relationships with illusory meanings that weren’t there before. Many things can attempt to fill, if not completely, the void left by a rejection of purpose. For some, a pet issue – environmentalism, sexual liberation, you name it – essentially becomes their church, complete with dogma, rigid adherents, and a salvation narrative.

to reel in from Toad’s – it’s courtship and self-giving.

It’s showing “need love,” to borrow C.S. Lewis’ term, but it’s also showing “gift love.” We love because we need to feel it back, but we must also love purely for the sake of giving. True love reflects the concept of agape – Koine Greek for Christ’s love of man, and man’s reciprocal love of Christ through his deeds and love of others. In no greater form can this be expressed between individuals than through practicing self-sacrificing love, where the adventure of the evening is not the new sex move but the latest act of charity – more shocking and lasting than the impression that the former can provide. It is freedom redefined, shifting the idea from “freedom to” to “freedom from,” if we may borrow the social theorist Isaiah Berlin’s framing. More properly understood, true freedom lies not in availing oneself of whatever he wants to indulge an appetite, but in liberation from the strains of the appetite through the discovery of a higher good.

“A languishing hope in finding something uniquely beautiful in our relationships with others “We love because we need leads to the confusing (and to feel it back, but we must often fruitless) endeavor also love purely for the involving “finding your sake of giving.” own meaning.”

Over Christmas Break, I spent a week traversing Costa Rica. The country is absolutely beautiful, and its people are happy – though large swaths of the capital city, San Jose, are in shambles. On our last evening there, my family was recommended a restaurant in a hotel located in the heart of town called the Grano de Oro, or “the grain of gold.” As the taxi rolled up to the entrance, the sight of the surroundings were miserable – blocks upon blocks stank of urban decay and desolation.

And then we walked into the hotel, and it was as if we’d entered into the “Play it again, Sam!” scene from Casablanca. Velvet walls. Beautiful grandfather clocks. A medieval courtyard, laced with lights and gentle music caressing the guests enjoying their meals. It was a relic from times past – a “grain of gold,” indeed.

How do we create our own grains of gold, amid the prevailing darkness and narcissistic delusion at Yale? It certainly doesn’t help when we find out what goes on in WLH during off-hours, as Nathan Harden’s Sex and God at Yale recently exposed. The concept of a relationship is scary and difficult – as it should be. Relationships involve commitment, effort, and continual self-confrontation and improvement.

All the more reason to go out on a limb. To be – ironically – countercultural. Today, living on the edge is not random sex with the first person you manage

18

Everything is betting against you. The medicalization of sex (and, consequently, morality) provides the intellectual background to the “free sex” movement, and the peer pressure provides the social background. Given this background, people convince themselves that the mutual taking found in a one-night stand is harmless. In this atmosphere, individuals are bound to make all sorts of mistakes, to be gripped by all kinds of lust, and to prescribe the name “love” to what is nothing more than a set of raging hormones. The Yale student, contrary to what may be his own belief, is no Augustine, and even he fell into similar traps many times over. The key is to always call mistakes by their true name. The moment a mistake is no longer recognized as such, and sin is “accounted for,” the individual is on his way into more trouble.

Are Leon Kass and the New York Times’ Alex Williams right about the “end of courtship”? You have the power to be countercultural. Too retro? No. Rad. "

John Aroutiounian is a junior Ethics, Politics, & Economics major in Jonathan Edwards College.

19

LOVE, SEX, & CHRISTIANITY

“WHAT DO YOU LOOK FOR IN A GUY OR GIRL?”

“I am looking for someone I can be truly open with. She should be a co-traveler in my current existential pursuit.

Besides that, I want somebody whom I find physically attractive.”

“Service, humility, leadership qualities, humor, and presents herself well.”

Baher Iskander PC ‘16

“Nice, manly hands and a heart-melting voice.

That’s it. Just kidding.

Not really.”

Wojciech Osowiecki MC ‘14

“Confidence and being able to make me smile.”

April Koh ‘14

“Faith, a good sense of humor, compassionate, intelligent, attractive facial figures.”

“I look for a confident, funny, humble girl.

Somebody that I can go out with, but also somebody I can just kick it with. A P31.”

Julia Dixon TC ‘16

Brandon Sherrod PC ‘15

“Dependability.”

“My mom’s checklist: 1) Is he straight? 2) Is he single? 3) Is he taller than you?”

The Logos · Fall 2013

Sam Garcia BK ‘16

Courtney McEahon, PC ‘15

“Funny in a clever way, has a relaxed nature, comfortable during social interaction, attractive physically to me, someone who can charm my mother, genuinely nice and non judgemental, and taller than me.”

Serena Candelaria TD ‘14

“A hot chef!”

Jeanni Hwang TD ‘14

“Security with his masculinity.”

Bella Ilagan ES ‘14

“A companion. Someone to experience life with.”

Symba Nuruddin MC ‘16

Carissa Sanchez, BK ‘15

20

“Someone who understands my sense of humor and has one of his own, has a stronger faith than I do, and is kindhearted. It wouldn’t hurt if he liked sports.”

“I look for the woman who I have searched for countless centuries before we were born into this world, a woman so amazing that dead flowers lift their heads just to get a glimpse of her. She moves my soul; she’s funny; she knows how to praise God.”

Folake Ogunmola, PC ‘15

“Someone who loves adventures and has a purpose in life. Someone I can forever be silly with.”

“A family man who looks after his family, a strong sense of responsibility and commitment to whatever he does, optimistic, a leader, humble, God-fearing, a sense of humor.”

Vela Susan Park, TD ‘13

“Has eyes that smile and doesn’t think I’m ugly when I make funny faces.”

Shelly Kim, PC ‘15

“I look for a woman I can always have meaningful conversations with, and someone who always keeps me on my toes and excited about our relationship.”

Sarah Park DC ‘13

“ I look for guys who are Christian and who enjoy having fun and loving life. I’m attracted to guys who make me laugh, who are secure in themselves, and who are manly yet also know how to be romantic.”

Jordan Konell, PC ‘15

“Loves Jesus, makes me laugh, and not too tall.”

Molly Michaels, TD ‘15

Christian Williams, DC ‘14

21

LOVE, SEX, & CHRISTIANITY

Travis Reginal, BK ‘16

22

The Logos 路 Fall 2013

Testimonies

Interview with Jeffrey Brenzel Master of Timothy Dwight College and Former Dean of Undergraduate Admissions

On Love: Since most Yale students think they will get married, Logos asked a faculty member about his own experience with marriage.

JEANNI How did you meet your wife?

BRENZEL My wife became the roommate of a great friend of mine from Yale.

JEANNI

LOVE, SEX, & CHRISTIANITY

How did you know when you wanted to marry her?

BRENZEL You just know, though you never really know.

JEANNI What has surprised you in marriage? Does your spouse fit the hard criteria that you had idealized for a woman before marriage?

BRENZEL Everything is surprising about marriage.

JEANNI What has made your marriage sustainable?

BRENZEL I think for every marriage this is a complicated story. It

© Amy Wang Yale Daily News

certainly has been for ours. Love, respect, hard work, humility, perseverance in times of personal, family, or career challenges. Without all of those you cannot get far. Even with those, it’s not easy! And of course, there’s the grace of God. And your children, if you are blessed to have some.

JEANNI What is your advice for students currently looking?

BRENZEL Enough difference to be interesting; enough in common to have plenty to share. Be sure you cannot only tolerate each other’s family, but actively love them. They are far more important in most peoples’ lives and in the makeup of your spouse than you are likely to appreciate going into a marriage. And make sure that you will want to continue talking with each other for a long time!

23

Testimonies

A Love Story The Logos · Fall 2013

RICHARD LEE MC ‘14, Economics

“SAINT VALENTINE BAPTIZING ST. LUCILLA” (C) JACOPO DE PONTE

24

The fourteenth day of February is “Valentine’s Day,” when many people celebrate romantic love by going on dates, exchanging gifts, or visiting the library to study for an upcoming midterm exam. All those things are wonderful, but I think they do not adequately capture the meaning of Valentine’s Day, which originated with the Church’s commemoration of St. Valentine, a priest in Rome under the reign of Emperor Claudius II. Hagiographical literature records that St. Valentine assisted many persecuted Christians during his lifetime; he even took the risk of officiating secret Christian marriages, which were illegal at the time. As a result, the imperial authority apprehended him. Refusing to renounce his Faith, St. Valentine was martyred on February 14th, A.D. 269.

It is a lovely story, but the exact identity of St. Valentine is uncertain. There were at least two other “St. Valentines” who were also martyred on February 14th, and seven more with the same name were martyred on other calendar days. Whether or not the martyrdom accounts of the many St. Valentines are historically accurate, one cannot deny that throughout history (and even in many countries today) countless numbers of Christians have been martyred or otherwise persecuted for the sake of their Faith, beginning with a first-century Deacon, Stephen, whose story is found in the Acts of the Apostles.

This prototype of all future martyrs delivered a passionate speech at his trial before the persecutors who stoned him. At the moment of death, he looked up to heaven and prayed for his persecutors, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them” (Acts 7:60).

I find their stories to be extraordinary. Those martyrs must have truly loved God, for they not only died for their Faith but also demonstrated their deep love for their neighbors by praying for their executioners even as they were being killed. For us, it can be difficult even to comprehend that kind of love, let alone to demonstrate it.

To understand the nature of the love the martyrs displayed, one must first understand the nature of martyrdom. A martyr like St. Valentine is not merely someone who embraces death to justify the Christian Faith; he is more than that. In his work Murder in the Cathedral, T. S. Elliot writes the following in the voice of St. Thomas Becket, another martyr:

neighbors as displayed in their deaths, one must first understand the love of God. The love of God is all-encompassing, and thus obviously far beyond the scope of anything I could possibly write. I will focus only on the love of God demonstrated in the way he redeems the world that rejects him, through the Father’s only begotten Son, Jesus Christ.

Through our willful disobedience to God, we fell away from God, distorting our relationship with God and with the created order. We were made in God’s image to serve God and rule over the world; instead, we chose to serve the world and try to rule over God. This rebellion against God is only all too common in human experience; we serve and seek after created things in vain attempts to satiate a desire that only God can fulfill. Consequently, humanity reaps the natural and rightful consequence of its own rebellion—a world of unrighteousness and suffering.

Since this fallen world is the full manifestation of what we desired, God should not be held responsible for its condition. Being just and perfect, God only needs to grant us our rightfully earned wage of sin, which is death (cf. Romans 6:23). However, because God so loves the world, he wants to change us and redeem us even though he has no obligation to do so. Therefore, God directly intervenes in the fallen Creation that on “those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness... light shined” (Isaiah 9:2).

This is the mystery of the Incarnation: that Jesus Christ, the divine Logos, “became flesh and made his dwelling among us” (John 1:14). So He, who was fully God but also fully man in all respects apart from sin, suffered and “has been tempted in every way” (Hebrews 4:15). Indeed, God commiserates with us, for he humbled himself and became one of us. The God for whom “all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him” (Colossians 1:16-17) was at once a baby too weak to even raise his arms.

This baby grew up. During the last three years of his life, he preached, performed miracles, and made disciples. Jesus was immensely popular; in the week before his Passion, he entered Jerusalem triumphantly with crowds welcoming him like a King (cf. Matthew 21:111). However, Christ’s popularity did not last: five days A martyr, a saint, is always made by the design of later, the same crowd shouted, “crucify him!” ApparGod, for His love of men, to warn them and to lead ently, although God so loved the world that he sent his them, to bring them back to His ways. A martyrdom only begotten Son, the world found him to be threatenis never the design of man; for the true martyr is he ing and rejected him (cf. Luke 20:9-16). Even the diswho has become the instrument of God… The marciples who followed Jesus for three years deserted him tyr no longer desires anything for himself, not even and fled. Like the crowds, we too have rejected God’s the glory of martyrdom. (Murder in the Cathedral, love and nailed him on the cross with our own sin and Interlude) left him hanging there in total abandonment. This Passover Lamb of God died in this act of divine sacrifice to The true martyrs, then, do not seek anything for take away the sins of the world. Even as he was dying on themselves, not even their self-justification by dying the cross, Jesus prayed “Father, forgive them, for they the martyr’s death. Instead, the martyrs seek to subknow not what they are doing” (Luke 23:34). This is how mit completely to the divine will and embrace the divine God demonstrated his love: “while we were still sinners, love for mankind. The minds of the martyrs are ultiChrist died for us” (Romans 5:8). mately focused on God as they face their end. Therefore, Three days after the crucifixion, Christ was resurto understand the martyrs’ love for God and for their rected and he thus brought new life out of his death.

25

LOVE, SEX, & CHRISTIANITY

A Love Story

The Logos · Fall 2013

Richard Lee

To the world that crucified him and the disciples who abandoned him, Jesus held no grudge but instead said, “Peace be with you” (Luke 24:36), because those who are justified are counted as righteous and thus have peace with God (cf. Romans 5:1). This justification is “the most excellent work of God’s love made manifest in Christ” (CCC 1994). It is in the risen Christ that we can be detached from sin to discover our new life. In exchange for the crown of thorns the world gave him, God grants the crown of life to those who believe and follow Him. Although the world was an unwelcoming place, God intervened out of His love, dwelled among us in flesh and died to reconcile the world to him.

Truly, God so loved the world “that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). Understanding the Scripture’s account of the Incarnation, the Passion, and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ should have a profound impact on one’s understanding of love, for (in the words of St. Augustine) “whoever thinks he understands divine scripture or any part of it,” but “whose interpretation does not build up the twofold love of God and neighbor, has not really understood it” (De doctrina Christiana, I.36.40). The God who so loved the world also taught us to “love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength”, and “love your neighbor as yourself ” (Mark 12:30-31). The two greatest commandments must have impacted martyrs like St. Valentine as they gave their entire life for God and submitted to Him in their hour of death. How can one submit completely to God without loving him? Without a radical love for one’s neighbor, how can one possibly pray for his murderers while being stoned to death?

“ALTHOUGH THE WORLD WAS AN UNWELCOMING PLACE, GOD INTERVENED OUT OF HIS LOVE, DWELLED AMONG US IN FLESH AND DIED TO RECONCILE THE WORLD TO HIM.” It is only fitting and proper to “love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength” on the account of what God has done. Although we love God because he first loved us (cf. I John 4:19), we must not feel as if we can repay God in full with our love and devotion; God loves us more than any other love we could ever give or receive, for he died for us while we were still sinners, before we ever knew him (cf. Romans 5:8). This is the greatest love story the world has ever known, and we cannot truly repay, but only to do the little that we

can: respond to God in love. What then is this love for God? “To obey his commands” (I John 5:3).

Jesus commanded us to “love your neighbor as yourself,” but does this mean that love for God is not enough? There are probably many reasons for loving one’s neighbors. C. S. Lewis points out in “The Weight of Glory” that because we deal with immortals who one day might be made into the image of Christ, we must treat people seriously and carefully. We as Christians must truly love our neighbors if we truly love God. Lewis explains: There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilisations—these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit—immortal horrors or everlasting splendours. This does mean that we are to be perpetually solemn. We must play. But our merriment must be that of the kind (and it is, in fact, the merriest kind) which exists between people who have, from the outset, taken each other seriously—no flippancy, no superiority, no presumption. And our charity must be a real and costly love, with deep feeling for the sins in spite of which we love the sinner—no mere tolerance, or indulgence which parodies love as flippancy parodies merriment. Next to the Blessed Sacrament itself, your neighbour is the holiest object presented to your senses. If he is your Christian neighbour, he is holy in almost the same way, for in him also Christ vere latitat—the glorifier and the glorified, Glory Himself, is truly hidden (“The Weight of Glory”).

We do not love our neighbors because they might be our friends or because they are whom we find loveable.

We are also to love those who are marginalized in the society. How are we treating the hungry, the stranger, the sick, and the prisoner (cf. Matthew 25:31-46)? Jesus said that “whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me” (Matthew 25:40). Are we caring for those who cannot care for themselves, the poor, the homeless, the sick, the foreigner, the unborn, those who are among the weakest and the most vulnerable members of our society?

Christians are called to love through selfless service and sacrifice as Christ has loved us, because “by this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another” (John 13:35). The impetus for this is rather clear: “let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. This is how God showed his love among us: he sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins” (I John 4:7-10).

Originally written for St. Valentine’s Day. Richard Lee is a senior Economics major in Morse College.

26

Testimonies

On Marriage MICAH MATTHEWS

Since we are married and “stable,” many of my friends have been surprised to learn that Chris and I regularly get into conflicts, usually disagreements followed by some pretty frustrated conversation. Their surprise, I think, reflects the close association many of us make between conflict and “what is bad.” But I think that conflict isn’t such a bad thing, and I’ll share the few tips I’ve learned.

Conflicts stem from disagreements, and thank goodness for disagreements! If there were complete harmony between Chris and me, then we would either be exactly the same or one of us would be completely passive.

Both circumstances would be boring and unsatisfying in a relationship.

Disagreements are like wet, smelly clothes: putting them on the shelf to take care of later only makes them stink! But dealing with them right away, though unpleasant in the moment, prevents them from getting nearly as nasty, and keeps them from ruining your other clothes. Disagreements too are better dealt with as soon as you understand what is causing them (though probably not in the heat of an emotional moment).

Productive conflicts are the means of re-uniting two people who have been divided by a disagreement.

When Chris and I were first dating, we hardly ever got into arguments, but the closer we got, our expectations grew, and so did the number of struggles. Since then I have learned a few things, which I’ll share with you: · Don’t be so sure that you are right. · Take time to understand how the other person feels, and what their perspective is. · Take time to verbally validate the other person’s feelings and perspective. This also gives you a chance to find out if you actually understand your partner, or if you’re fighting a made-up opponent. · Be honest about your own perspective. Don’t be a doormat. Don’t hide your feelings. · Take time to apologize for any hurt you have caused, even if turns out you were “right.” · Forgive each other before you go to sleep (Ephesians 4:26-27). · Value the other person more than you value “your relationship.” · Pray (this really helps!).

All close relationships are going to have conflict, and it will always take time to learn how to handle them.

Each conflict is an opportunity to improve your relationship skills. Conflicts are also a time to evaluate the maturity level of your significant other, and of yourself (embarrassing, for me, sometimes). They are an opportunity for personal growth and for growth as a couple. It’s a test you and your beloved must pass, but how sweet it is to know that no conflict will ever convince you, or your life’s love, to ever give up on love.

27

LOVE, SEX, & CHRISTIANITY

Wife and Mother of 3

The Logos · Fall 2013

MADELEINE WITT SM ‘15, Art and English

28

LOVE, SEX, & CHRISTIANITY

MADELEINE WITT SM ‘15, Art and English

29

The Logos · Fall 2013

MADELEINE WITT SM ‘15, Art and English

Not By Sight

30

LOVE, SEX, & CHRISTIANITY

A Book Review

COURTNEY MCEACHON PC ‘15, Biomedical Engineering Sex and God at Yale, by Nathan Harden ‘09, is the explicit, full-length rendition of what began as media coverage of Sex Week at Yale (SWAY) 2010. Harden intersperses personal experiences and eye-witness accounts of events, SWAY related and otherwise, as well as a comprehensive historical account of the sexual culture at Yale up to the present, putting his readers in the context of the university over time. Sex and God at Yale is written in the spirit of the late William F. Buckley’s God and Man at Yale, and Harden’s chiastic reversal of the placement of God in the title is the harbinger of the shocking 300-page exposé that awaits a curious reader. The book begins with a prelude from Christopher Buckley, who in addition to praising the seminal work of Harden, sets the stage of Yale as a university that has “lost its sense of moral purpose and is adrift, anchorless, in a sea of political correctness, relativism, and diversity” (intro). Buckley finds the preposterousness of sex taken so utterly seriously at Yale to be the most striking aspect of the book’s discussion, a thread Harden will continue to weave. As we prepare to delve

31

into the grisly details, Buckley leaves us with the ominous observation: “There is a war being waged on the minds of America’s brightest young people” (4), and therein rest Harden’s theses. Is this a war? Who are the players? And what are the stakes?

Opening immediately with a Sex Week 2008 event hosted by Pure Romance, Harden wastes no time launching his first complaint about the lewd week of sex and sexuality: the corporate sponsorships. In the case of Pure Romance, the funds totaled over thirty thousand dollars, not including free giveaways provided during the event. According to his research, Pure Romance engaged with 15 other universities that year, likely putting on a similar show which demonstrates the empowerment that comes from sexual freedom and the relativity of human experience. Harden finds the “easy compatibility of corporate interests and education” highly suspect and a cause for alarm (16). At a university that only recently rescinded its ban on ROTC-approved courses due to its moral objection to the “don’t ask don’t tell policy,” Yale

Courtney McEachon

The Logos · Fall 2013

administrators were strangely silent from the scene that day as a sex toy company marketed vibrators, dildos, and gels to its soon-to-be customers. Sex Week had become a pretext and platform for a lucrative business interaction, and students were being exploited in the name of education.

Later, Harden details parallel events from Sex Week 2010 put on by none other than Babeland’s Darlinda and porn star Sasha Grey. The accounts, which spare the readers no details, weave dialogue, Harden’s own reaction, and satiric commentary. Though Harden is thorough in his descriptions, he often prompts or affirms his audience’s reactions, a sometimes overbearing authorial tactic.

longwinded storyteller, Harden is able to poke fun at himself lightly, displaying the quirkiness that characterizes all Yale students. He describes his best experience at Yale, the City of Rome summer, and his worst, the “Language Class” at the Drama school. He constantly references his enchantment with Yale that sometimes verges on obsession. Harden, married and in his twenties, began his Yale days with more experience than most bright-eyed 18 year olds, but his high hopes for the elite institution were intact. Later, however, when the illusion of the high minded institution committed to training wholesome leaders was shattered, Harden comes down hard on Yale. His disappointment and slight pessimism pervade the text.

In addition to observing Sex Week, Harden also presents commentary on the daily sexual culture that students experience during the other 29 weeks of the school year. For example, language classes often subject their students to in-class film viewings rife with “inoffensive nudity,” which Harden claims that though harmless, does further the objectification of women by making it seem irrelevant. Leading into his next point, this objectification, Harden believes, is utterly incompatible with women’s equality. Harden boldly is not afraid to touch on the inherent differences between the sexes. He even cites evidence from the science of the limbic system to point to the dissatisfaction that the “hook-up” culture leaves women, who have a greater expectation for finding a true “connection,” but are instead just left with sex.

Harden also develops the thesis that ultimately women control the hook-up culture. The higher 1) professional ambition and 2) the pressure to “delay love” are for women, the greater the hook-up culture. Though radical feminists fight aggressively against the passive role women traditionally take in establishing relationships, women have power over their own bodies. And because men will do just about anything for sex, women are only relinquishing their power when they give in to the culture of endless, meaningless one-night-stands.

“Sex Week had become a pretext and platform for a lucrative business interaction, and students were being exploited in the name of education.”

Moving directly into the perniciously ubiquitous evil, Harden takes us off campus for the next event: The Great Porn Debate between Ron Jeremy and Craig Gross, broadcasted by ABC News. This event typified the implicit Sex Week thinking: the ideal woman is a porn star (30). In the debate, Ron Jeremy made the case that sex is not unrelated to one’s lifestyle and that it affects the view young men develop toward women in the professional world and in personal relationships. Yet, it was clear that the students attending came for the porn.

Harden next recounts a “peacocking” and pick-up line how-to event. With the debate and peacocking in mind, Harden asserts that conventional at Yale University is the idea that women can be objectified and completely manipulated, but all in the name of free speech and a healthy outlet for sexual fantasy. To conclude the porn trifecta, Steven Hirsch from Vivid Entertainment spoke under the guise of a business entrepreneur. Presenting himself as the Horatio Alger of the porn industry, Hirsch spoke seriously about his path to success from nothing. Harden takes the opportunity to again point out the incongruence between something so absurdly debasing and the seriousness in which the discussion took place. There was no acknowledgement of HIV risks and outbreaks that are common in the porn industry, and he was careful to skirt the question of whether he would allow his daughter to partake in the lifestyle of a porn actress. Even from the industry standpoint, no regard was shown for the lives of those involved in pornography.

To break up the Yale sex saga, Harden inserts a moderately complete autobiography from the end of his homeschooling education to his acceptance at Yale after three rounds of applications. An interesting, sometimes

“Harden also develops the thesis that ultimately women control the hook-up culture. The higher 1) professional ambition and 2) the pressure to “delay love” are for women, the greater the hook-up culture.”

32

A Book Review

33

freedom that stands for nothing. We operate under the “consensus of feeling,” and when this breaks down, we are left only with nihilism.

Getting bolder with each stroke of his pen, Nathan Harden asks whether Yale can find the moral courage to stand up in the face of multiculturalism and political correctness and defend the culture and value system of the West. And on this note he concludes with examples of dubious speakers and ambassadors, including ones who support terrorist organizations, that have been brought to lecture or study under the aegis of the university. This transcends the call to be diverse and accepting, and as a prestigious college, we are setting trends for the nation. He is unafraid to posit that Yale ought even to return to the premise that we are created

by God, and our God-given human dignity is the basis of human rights. We need to embrace our roots of faith and service and be a leading university in more than just the Forbes ranking.

“Rather than pursuing “lux et veritas” we have support for pluralism and academic freedom that stands for nothing.”

Sex and God at Yale is a quick lesson on the moral faux pas Yale has made within the last decade. Harden’s autobiography highlights a journey many students make, as they are first enchanted by Yale, then repelled by its lack of moral fiber. Indirectly Harden calls the administration to action, but the book lacks suggestions for a direction that students and alumni who want to reclaim their university may take. Sex and God at Yale, a concise piece that incorporates every major scandal of the 2000s, has the potential to garner attention and support for the cause. A must-read as fuel for students who want a better Yale College.

Courtney McEachon is a junior Biomedical Engineering major in Pierson College.

LOVE, SEX, & CHRISTIANITY

Continuing his review of the sexual culture outside of Sex Week, Harden explores the prevalence of public porn. Pornography has become an increasingly private affair because of easy Internet access, but at Yale, that’s not always the case. Harden describes the evolution of a group called Porn & Chicken, which met to screen pornography and eat greasy fast food from Popeye’s. Here he inserts detailed commentary of terminology, a delineation between hard and soft core porn, and the recent movement the industry has taken toward violent porn in which the focus is “punishing women rather than pleasuring them.” Harden clarifies that the student body at Yale isn’t particularly violent, cruel, or sexist, but quite the opposite. Yet having been raised on a steady diet of porn, students are “profoundly desensitized to sexual violence” (113). Perhaps shockingly, streaming porn in Yale classrooms is not a recent phenomenon. Harden masterfully intersperses his critique of 21st century Yale with historical commentary from as far back as the 60s and 70s when porn was often screened in the law school auditorium.

But why does the administration of such a prestigious institution stand by and do nothing? It appears that the perverse response (engagement rather than condemnation) is due to an irrational fear of appearing moralistic. Imploring those in charge, Harden attempts to prove that they need not become the religious right to exercise restraint, especially when it serves the interests of their students. However, it seems that the administration is happy to turn a blind eye, even to a explicit BDSM lecture, so long as the free speech can be chalked up to “improving communication” and “getting what you want.”

Also at Sex Week 2010, David Schaengold spoke to the Anscombe Society at Yale. He explained that consent as the measure of morality has lead to the total abasement of human dignity taking place after the sexual revolution. Furthermore, despite the futile efforts to excuse offensive and potentially harmful behavior, some acts are simply “incompatible with human dignity” (207). This is what the administration had forgotten when it permitted BDSM demonstrations in WLH that were later featured on a pay-perview porn website.

To return to the statement he makes in the title, Harden describes Yale without God. Here he focuses on Yale’s history and tradition, sharply displaying the contrast of the present with the past. The mantra above Old Campus’s High Street Gate, “For God, for Country, and for Yale,” Harden insists, is the historical progression that Yale has made through the centuries. Yale was founded in 1701 as a religious seminary, later became an institution of public service, and now remains a place that is no longer aware of any higher purpose it might serve but advancing its own growth and prestige (220). Harden believes that Yale ought to return relevance to her students’ faith. Then perhaps it could take a stance on complicated moral issues.

Yale lacks a “cohesive moral framework that religion once provided” (220) and rather than pursuing “lux et veritas” we have support for pluralism and academic

The Logos · Fall 2013

Forgiveness in the Family CHRISTINA LEE CC ‘13, History

34

Forgiveness in the Family “Follow God’s example, therefore, as dearly loved children and walk in the way of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.” (Ephesians 5:1-2).

A few months later, a friend of mine spoke to me about the nature of reconciliation. “Forgiveness is the highest form of love,” he shared. I silently fidgeted with my fingers. Forgiveness sounded good in theory; after all, we recite every Sunday that we forgive others their trespasses just as Christ forgave ours. But bigger questions loomed in my mind. How could I forgive my father for leaving me and my mother? How could I forgive him for the residual consequences of his actions that I daily continue to wrestle with as an adult? It slowly dawned on me over the course of the next few months, however, that forgiveness would provide healing not just for my father, but also for me. I had bought into the lie that I somehow deserved to be angry. I had believed that the painful memories that haunted me entitled me to the right to be unforgiving. Withholding forgiveness was an implicit gesture of pride and ingratitude for Christ’s sacrifice for me. Denying myself and others forgiveness equated to rejecting the essence of my identity in Christ.

" “...as dearly loved children” The same birthday ritual awaited me every year. As my mother and grandparents sang “Happy Birthday” to me, I braced myself for the moment when the family choir’s tenuous unison would crumble at my multisyllabic name.

Fifteen seconds later, I extinguished the candles and made my birthday wishes. The words I muttered assumed a particular sacredness in my mind every July 17th—perhaps God would listen to my prayers especially on my birthday. Until the day I turned twenty-one this past summer, I unfailingly made variations of the same wish year after year: that my parents would stop fighting, that my family would make peace, that one day the brokenness of the family I come from would no longer be cause for me to cry into my pillow for fear of being heard.

Sometimes the wishes were impassioned pleas; other times they were hollow sighs. Those who know me well have heard me remark that I have always felt too old for my age, that I skipped my childhood, and that years of suffering have raised my threshold for pain and numbed me into a cynic. I grew up in a home torn apart by adultery, divorce, and toxic bitterness. I searched for validation in schoolwork, extracurricular activities, and my self-image, wishing to feel wanted and loved. During those years, I was fortunate enough to have God waiting on the other end to cradle me and be my Father. When I cried out for a Father, He grasped tightly onto me, protecting me and guiding my way, even when tears clouded my eyes and occluded the sight of the road that He had set ahead of me.

Living a life of love does not and cannot happen overnight. It takes patience and practice in relationships of all forms, and not just romantic ones. For me, my selfish motives for seeking love have slowly been transplanted by learning how to forgive and embrace selflessness. Choosing to wallow in self-pity instead of forgiving my father would foreclose my chance to love him sacrificially. As a new creation in Christ, and as a child adopted as a daughter of the Father, forgiveness has already been inscribed into my spiritual DNA. We must submit ourselves to our identities in Christ before we can love others through Him, for our capacity to love stems not from our own hearts, but from God’s. In forgiving, we love others not with a love that is our own to begin with, but rather out of a heart overflowing with the love of Christ. In becoming more like our Father day by day, we grow to love and forgive like Him. Learning to forgive has wrought changes in the relationships in my life. Humbling myself before God and admitting that I am in need of God’s mercy daily has made me more patient and understanding. Appreciating Christ’s sacrifice for me renders me more willing to lay down my selfish desires and share in others’ suffering.

I continue to pray for closure for my family, but I now understand that I cannot passively wait for change to occur or stake my hope for reconciliation on a birthday candle.

Challenging as it is, the first step towards reconciliation begins with my willingness to forgive and extend love to others. Only when I chose to take active measures to forgive him did I begin to desire a relationship with my father.

Only then did I discover that my words to him—“I love you, too”—finally became genuine. On my twenty-second birthday, I will not be passively depending on my birthday candle.

“...just as Christ loved us” I found myself unable to sleep more than two or three hours per night during my first month in Taipei during the summer of 2011. A host of events drained me physically, emotionally, and spiritually. Disillusioned with the prospect of romantic love, insecurities regarding my physical image took root and generated obsessive thought patterns in my mind. I saw my father’s side of the family for the first time in fifteen years, and their presence in my life, which I had shuttered into the back of my consciousness, forced me to confront the past anew. As I lay awake night after night staring out onto the empty street below, memories--both benign and poisonous--flooded my mind and tormented me with addictive power. I came to a depressing conclusion one of these restless nights: I had been running my entire life, running away from pain or running towards a goal.

Up to that point, my posture had always been that of a child crying for God’s comfort. Then God patiently began to urge me to grow. I could trust Him to grow me and make me an imitator of God, or I could keep childishly running on a depleted heart. To seek Him in times of distress was like asking for water when I was feverish. God wanted to help me tackle the root cause of the problem and learn to forgive.

Christina Lee is a Yale alumnus History major. She was in Calhoun College.

35

LOVE, SEX, & CHRISTIANITY

“...walk in the way of love”

L e a v e t a k i n g

The Logos · Fall 2013

Sherlyn Galarza Political Science (Health Policy Concentration), PC ’15 Think about the following question: what do you want to do with your life? The popular answer: “to help people.” Now think about this question: What do you want most in life? The popular answer: “to be happy.” For many, helping people is good, but being happy is the highest of all goods. In our culture, we help people because it makes us happy. We serve others because doing so serves our own needs.

Choosing to make our happiness the highest priority in our lives significantly impacts our choices and perceptions of the world around us—we begin to perceive the world precisely as revolving around ourselves. In this state, “I want to be happy” becomes a euphemism for “my highest priority in life is myself,” and “I do this because it makes me happy” becomes a stand-in for “I can and do what I want, when I want, how I want to and nothing or no one can stop me.” When this attitude begins to pervade our approach to love, sex, and relationships, these become primarily a means for self-gratification, and their essence is inevitably redefined.

For example, when a relationship, such as a relationship with a parent, hinders our ability to pursue our happiness, we come to perceive the relationship primarily as a nuisance. Meaningful friendships may cease to exist, only to be replaced by the false intimacy of cursory and shallow acquaintanceships to be used if the need presents itself. Moreover, romantic love comes to be characterized as the highest form of love and is redefined to mean having gooey pleasant firework-like feelings in reaction to someone else. When those feelings dim, this kind of love ends. Sex becomes only about fulfilling our desires for experiencing pleasure with our bodies, often independent of real love and commitment and, for some, sometimes even without consideration of the other.

And so, some begin to notice: this kind of “happiness” is fleeting. A sense of disappointment sets that is to be masked at all costs lest it be discovered at the expense of the façade of our perfect lives. We are left with an undefined desire for “more.” But what is this “more” if such “more” exists? C.S. Lewis calls it “Joy.” In his autobiography, Surprised by Joy, C.S. Lewis describes his various encounters with that “unsatisfied desire which is itself more desirable than any other satisfaction,” including this one below: “The second glimpse [of Joy] came through Squirrel Nutkin; through it only, though I loved all the Beatrix Potter books. But the rest of them were merely entertaining; it administered the shock, it was a trouble.

It troubled me with what I can only describe as the idea of Autumn. It sounds fantastic to say that one can be enamoured of a season, but that is something like what happened; and, as before, the experience

was one of intense desire. And one went back to the book, not to gratify the desire (that was impossible—how can one posses Autumn?) but to reawake it.

And in this experience also there was the same surprise and the same sense of incalculable importance.

It was something quite different from ordinary life and even from ordinary pleasure; something, as they would say now, ‘in another dimension.’”

Joy, Lewis describes, is distinct from happiness and pleasure, noting that he “doubt[ed] whether anyone who has tasted [Joy] would ever, if both were in his power, exchange it for all the pleasures in the world.” He includes sexual pleasure in this statement, later also noting that “you might as well offer a mutton chop to a man who is dying of thirst as offer sexual pleasure to the desire I am speaking of. [...] Joy is not a substitute for sex; sex is very often a substitute for Joy. I sometimes wonder whether all pleasures are not substitutes for Joy.” Joy, I believe, is the product of encountering or perceiving the beauty of God in our everyday lives. When we behold God’s beauty in nature, music, art, and literature, there is a sense in which we forget about ourselves momentarily; awestruck, we are grasped by this beauty, and as the glimpse of it fades, the awe is replaced by an intense desire to return to it. It is this beauty—His beauty— that God desires that our love, sex, and relationships mirror and imitate.

Thus, Christianity makes a bold statement: love, sex, and relationships are not primarily about us but about God. Christianity asserts that God is love, that his love is the deepest of all loves, and that our relationships and even sex are intentionally and primarily about revealing the beauty, glory and worth of the eternal God himself.

The Christian conceptions of love, sex, and relationships are not primarily about self-exaltation, but about the exaltation of God. It is God who, as we behold him, frees us from our addictions to self, gently bringing us to the realization that his design for sex and relationships is perfect because he is perfect.

This freedom allows us to love and know God more each day, and thus be able to love others selflessly, to serve others genuinely, and to forgive others undeservedly, just as Jesus Christ, God incarnate, did for us. God’s limitless love for us becomes the inexhaustible fuel for our love for our family, friends, lovers, and ourselves, and even empowers us to extend that love to strangers and our enemies. Learning to love like this is not an easy process, nor is it an instant process. We press on, knowing that “this is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.

We love because he first loved us” (1 John 4:10, 19).

36

The Logos introduces

WORD: The Logos Blog.

Read what other Christians are thinking at Yale!

CHECK IT OUT AT

YALELOGOS.COM/BLOG To blog with us, contact travis.reginal@yale.edu

Allegra Ad