THE PUB WHEATON’S INDEPENDENT ACADEMIC JOURNAL ENCOUNTER

Wheaton’s Prodigal Son: Loving Again, essay by John Ingraham ...... p.2 The Fruit Had Been Forbidden, poem by Josh Christenson ...... p.6 Now Hold It, poem by Amanda Tillapaugh ...... p.7 The Classroom, series by Lucy Rose Till ...... p. 8 Edwards and Thoreau: Typologies of Lakes, essay by Sarah Boss ...... p.14 Man vs. Scrubjay, poem by Josepha Natzke ...... p.18 Visitor, poem by Jonathan Wright ...... p.19 The Waking Place, series by Thomas Wilder ...... p.20 Death and Darwinism: A Patristic Approach, essay by Christopher Iacovetti ...... p.29 Ascension, poem by Amanda Laky ...... p.36

FALL/WINTER 2015 VOLUME XII ISSUE I

EDITORS JONATHAN GONZALEZ JONATHAN GROSS ALEX KIRCHNER NATHANIEL PERRIN JONATHAN WRIGHT COPY EDITOR SARAH BOSS

MANAGING EDITOR CHRISTOPHER IACOVETTI SENIOR EDITOR MADELINE MULKEY EDITOR-IN-CHIEF ELLEN MISLOSKI FACULTY ADVISOR DR. ALISON GIBSON ADVISOR BOARD DR. RYAN KEMP DR. MIHO NONAKA

BUSINESS MANAGERS CONNOR JENKINS JOSH JENNINGS

CONTRIBUTING EDITORS CHRISTOPHER IACOVETTI JONATHAN WRIGHT

Ellen Misloski Editor-in-Chief any case, from asking around our cam- WHEATON’S pus my impression is that most of us have no idea that Bell graduated from PRODIGAL Wheaton, received his pastoral calling as a student while preaching at Honeyrock, SON: LOVING and roomed on Traber 3 (glory be). The cause of this disconnect is that Whea- ton doesn’t really want to be associated ROB BELL with Bell—its only alumni to be on Time’s list of the world’s 100 most influential AGAIN people—primarily because Bell has ex- pressed doctrinal opinions which diverge JOHN INGRAHAM from mainline , most no- tably in the aforementioned Love Wins. his summer, while back in Califor- This move isn’t unwarranted—there nia, my friend Brian asked where are legitimate reasons to approach Bell TI was going to college. Now Brian with caution. That said, I believe that to is a twenty-something Los Angeles cre- discount rather than claim and welcome ative, exactly the kind of guy periodicals Bell goes against Wheaton’s deepest val- like Christianity Today have lament- ues and against the very purpose for ed over the years with articles about which it exists—precisely because Rob why millennials aren’t going to church, Bell is currently doing a better job than think-pieces on how churches can be- any of Wheaton’s other alumni at fulfill- come relevant again, and finally defeat- ing our school’s mission. A steep claim, ed and wound-licking headings like why but I’ll explain why it makes sense: first churches need to stop trying to be cool. by laying out what I see to be our school’s All this to say, I was pretty sure Brian values and purpose, and second by con- would have little contact with the Chris- tending that Rob is the man who’s doing tian world and no idea what Wheaton the most to further that purpose. College is. But lo and behold, I was pre- Everybody has things they value, paring to give him the spiel on our lit- even if they haven’t quite defined for tle midwest liberal arts haven when he themselves what those things are. Values immediately stopped me in my tracks— tend to arise from a personal experience “Wheaton? That’s Rob Bell’s college!” of something purposeful, good, or oth- Rob Bell had seemingly done the erwise life-giving. These values form the unthinkable: made Wheaton not only vast web of the human experience, and known to Brian but positively known and fall loosely into categories like intellectu- respected. I felt a surge of healthy scho- al, artistic, sexual, industrial, etc. Every lastic pride; I began to hum The Beach human being goes through the process Boys’ “Be True To Your School”. of gaining values through experience or The sad irony is that the man re- teaching, but initially they are discon- sponsible for creating this delightful nected from each other. As Emerson put connection between a twenty-something it, “To the young mind, every thing . . . and our community is likely unknown to stands by itself.” But things don’t stay you. Or, if you know of Bell, you proba- this way; we connect our experiences to bly know him negatively, through asso- form a worldview: “By and by, it finds ciation with his 2011 book Love Wins. In how to join two things” and “[The mind]

2 goes on tying things together, diminish- ness in aiding with human needs plum- ing anomalies, discovering roots running mets, resulting in a generation that sees under ground, whereby contrary and re- church as the last place they’d want to go mote things cohere, and flower out from on a Sunday morning. This makes sense: one stem.” Unless Jesus is shown to be intimately This “stem” is the center and sus- and crucially connected to the deepest tainer of one’s beliefs and values. The convictions and longings a person has, common view today is that whatever val- he’ll appear about as compelling as a ue or truth works best for you, go with bowl of lima beans. that. Or else, don’t think of any central Thankfully, there are Christians truth or purpose unifying your experi- and Christian institutions who don’t shy ences whatsoever. A Christian worldview, away from making these connections but on the other hand, is one in which this set out to create them—one being our stem is held to be Christ himself, who very own Wheaton College. Here at Whea- is the objective center of all knowledge ton, we simultaneously affirm that Christ whether you recognize him or not. is the center of everything, and also that “all truth is God’s truth.” The farthest The salt and light reaches of intellectual knowledge, scien- tific exploration, and artistic expression of Christ can flood are valuable precisely because we affirm, the world with as the poet Christian Wiman put it, that “there is no permutation of humanity in meaning and taste which Christ is not present.” instead of being kept This, then, is what the mission of Wheaton is: to equip students to bust tightly under the out of our crusty Christian shells and Christian bushel as create those vital connections between Jesus and what it means to be alive to- a sort of cloistered day, so the salt and light of Christ can flood the world with meaning and taste cluster cuss. instead of being kept tightly under the For some Christians, this can have Christian bushel as a sort of cloistered unfortunate consequences: In affirm- cluster cuss. ing that Christ is the source of all val- That sounds nice, but what does ue, some discount the value of anything it look like to actually build these con- not directly related to him, or else isolate nections? I submit that it looks a lot like themselves out of fear of the unknown. Wheaton graduate Rob Bell. When Bell As Bell puts it in his book Velvet Elvis, started his church Mars Hill in Michigan doctrines which were meant to be used fifteen years ago, he decided to launch as springs toward action, exploration, with a year long series on Leviticus. and full life are often instead used as He took the book notorious for being bricks to wall off the “Christian” from the the death of cover to cover Bible read- “unchristian”, the “spiritual” from the throughs and made it compelling. Exact- “unspiritual”. ly how compelling? Well, within a year, With Jesus severed from crucial Mars Hill had moved from a high school parts of the human experience, Christian to a 3,500 chair building. Within five art, scholarship, and overall effective- years, attendance was 11,000 a week.

3 At this point, Bell could have played I don’t want to say that being cau- it safe. He had a massive, loving con- tious when handling Bell’s claims is un- gregation. His books Velvet Elvis, Sex warranted. Any and all interpretations God, etc., were neatly stocking shelves of God’s word ought to be scrutinized, of church book stores across the coun- especially those which, like Bell’s, carry try. And, he had the respect of mainline some pretty big implications. That said, evangelicals (in 2003, he did a three day the fact is that Love Wins facilitated a chapel series here at Wheaton). But that fresh and necessary encounter with the same compulsion Bell felt at HoneyRock living truth of Christ for many Christians as an undergrad to create new and need- around the world, including myself. I ed connections kept eating at him, and want to suggest the sort of spiritual wres- he turned to take on the perennial ele- tling and question asking that occurs in phant in the room of Christianity: hell. Love Wins is what it looks like to take the In 2011, he published the now infamous Love Wins. In it, Bell asked a number of Many are upset with vexed questions about Jesus, heaven, hell, and death. He wrestled through Bell for having the contested passages across the scriptures audacity to step into to fight against what he saw as an overall “toxic” common Christian perspective on controversial arenas the afterlife: with God, but maybe “It’s been clearly communicated to many that this belief (in hell as con- God isn’t. scious, eternal torment) is a central truth of the Christian faith and to reject it is, in blueprints of connection given to us by essence, to reject Jesus. This is misguid- the scriptures and actually take the risk ed and toxic and ultimately subverts the of building a vibrant and powerfully rel- contagious spread of Jesus’ message of evant Christ-centered worldview out of love, peace, forgiveness and joy that our them. It shouldn’t surprise us that this world desperately needs to hear.” almost inevitably upsets people: It hap- Bell offered several alternative views pened a few thousand years ago when a on the afterlife, one of which was a uni- guy stood up and put forward something versalist view—i.e., the view that eventu- along the lines of “you have heard it said ally not even those in hell will be able to ‘such-and-such blueprint for living a stand against the redeeming love of Je- godly life,’ but I say to you that building sus. Bell has denied being a universalist, the actual structure out of that teaching and he didn’t identify universalism as the has a lot more disruptive implications “right” view in Love Wins, but nor did he than you think. condemn it. As he concludes, “whatever It costs nothing to say “all truth is objections a person may have of [the uni- God’s truth.” But to attempt an actu- versalist view], and there are many, one al reconciliation of the reality of sexual has to admit that it is fitting, proper, and ambiguity (or of the natural uneasiness Christian to long for it.” The retribution which arises at the thought of eternal for this assertion was swift: Bell’s con- punishment being enacted for the crime gregation turned on him, denunciations of being born in Hindu India) with the flooded in, my Wisconsin pastor took his truth who is Christ—now that’s revolu- books off our church’s shelf. Bell and his tionary, and deeply necessary. family moved to California. You may be rightfully skeptical of

4 a man who teaches in a way that hasn’t for Wheaton which is just as implicat- been taught before, but I ask you to recon- ing today as it was then. If you don’t like sider our alumni Bell on the basis of this what you hear, know why, and be able to ancient wisdom: You shall know them by articulate why. If you like what you hear, their fruit and for their love. Bell’s fruit join me in reconnecting Bell to the Whea- (bear with me) is that thousands of peo- ton community, and perhaps before too ple, millennial and otherwise, have come long he’ll be standing on the chapel stage to Christ; and thousands more have been once again. given a fresh connection to Jesus who “Israel” means “wrestled with God.” otherwise would have slid into agnosti- The Jewish people were chosen not be- cism. This work of connecting continues cause they submitted to the status quo, through Bell’s cross country speaking but because they got onto the mat and tours like his recent “Everything Is Spir- wrangled in dirt and grime with their cre- itual 2” tour (attempts to connect Christ ator. Many are upset with Bell for having to all truth don’t get much more direct the audacity to step into controversial than a tour entitled “Everything Is Spiri- arenas with God, but maybe God isn’t. tual”). On top of that, a vibrant commu- Maybe God lit up with eager excitement nity many thousands strong is inspired when, in 2011, He saw Bell stepping into through his weekly RobCast, and thou- the ring with intent to throw down. Fi- sands more through The Liturgists—a nally, He may have thought, someone wonderful podcast headed up by “Sci- with faith ridiculous and risky enough to ence” Mike McHargue and Michael Gun- meet me in a dangerous field, even in the gor whose searches for God were reboot- face of personal injury. And now Rob, like ed by Rob Bell himself. Israel, walks with a limp— that of being In light of this, I ask you to give Bell disconnected from mainline Christian- a shot. Read Love Wins, look up “Every- ity. But also like Israel, I sincerely be- thing Is Spiritual” on YouTube, listen to lieve God has blessed Rob Bell in order the RobCast or The Liturgists. If nothing to bless many, blessing them through a else, google his November 7, 2003 chapel fresh and relevant encounter with the liv- address, a powerful and direct message ing truth of Christ.

5 THE FRUIT HAD BEEN FORBIDDEN JOSH CHRISTENSON

A mallard, roughly the size of a bassinet, squats on Lars’ chest, collapsing his ribcage. It leans against his cheek, extending from the tip of its beak a single cherry. “Christalmighty” Lars gasps. The cherry’s fleshy red is tempered by the afterthought of a blind earthworm.

6 NOW HOLD IT AMANDA TILLAPAUGH

“Now hold it there,” you said. You’d jammed a stick Into the sewer plate, and propped it up So that a slice of black cracked through the weeds. You were younger, but I obeyed. Crouching In the grass, I held out sun-browned arms To catch the cover’s weight. “Let go,” I said. The metal bit into my hands, and sank, Drawn like a magnet to the wet, black earth, With my fingers clutched beneath. I paled, yelled For help. You — wild boy, of buzzed blonde hair And daring tricks — ran for Dad, who split The lawn and took the metal from my grip. He carried me inside and held my fingers To the light: the weight had skinned them clean. He washed away the blood and wrapped the wounds In gauze. “You could’ve lost a finger,” he said, And shook his head, and set me down to rest.

I see you there, still, plumbing the depths To find another shining thing: a light; A coin; a skull; my fingers, nubs of blood And bone; lost years; our fears of Hell and fire. From up above you seem a pale, bright smudge. I sing to you, and kick the grass in fright. Brother — I wish that I could take the weight, And hold this cover high above the weeds. But I’m too weak for such a heavy, rusted thing.

7 THE CLASSROOM LUCY ROSE TILL

ost classrooms are boring. There are only chairs, a few electronic devices, some trashcans, and maybe an old-fashioned wall pencil sharpener. I usually de- Mspair of finding anything interesting to draw to keep my hands busy during lectures. But I wanted a new artistic challenge. One that would train my eye to stop seeing a boring old desk and begin to see abstractly—to see the planes and shadows which make up an object. So for a week I only allowed myself to draw things I could see from my seat in the classroom. I made arbitrary frames on the page and then drew images to fit inside them. I used a fine-tipped black pen in order to focus on precision and realism. I wanted to make art out of something that bored me. The frames that follow are the results of my personal challenge.

8 9 10 11 12 13 ing conclusions. For Edwards, such a EDWARDS AND lake is “death” and “darkness itself,” but for Thoreau, Walden is “remarkable” for THOREAU: its “purity.” Ultimately, their contrasting conclusions reveal irreconcilable differ- TYPOLOGIES ences in methodology. Edwards begins Image no. 117 with an explicit statement of his typology. Tra- OF LAKES ditionally, typology is the reading and un- derstanding of Old Testament “types” in SARAH BOSS light of their New Testament “antitypes” or fulfillment, but Edwards extends his reading beyond Scripture to include na- erman Melville remarks in Mo- ture. Here, he frames his typological by-Dick, “Yes, as everyone knows, reading as a poignant thesis. He writes, Hmeditation and water are wedded “The water, as I have observed elsewhere, for ever.” Whether everyone knows this is a type of sin or the corruption of man, is not certain, but two other stalwarts of and of the state of misery that is the con- American thought surely did. Jonathan sequence of it.” By asserting that water Edwards and Henry David Thoreau both “is a type of” sin and corruption, Edwards give water serious meditation—Thoreau accomplishes two things: First, he an- perhaps more famously in Walden, while nounces that he will interpret a universal Edwards’s aqueous meditations appear image of a body of water, rather than one throughout his work, but especially in specific lake or pond, thus universalizing his journal Images of Divine Things. his forthcoming interpretation. Second, Although these two men operate he establishes a strong sense of typology within contrasting schemata—Edwards by using a being verb rather than simi- adhering to a Puritan tradition of em- le or metaphorical language, such as “is blems and typology which he extends like” or “is representative of,” thus clear- further into the realm of nature, and ly equating the “type” with his reading Thoreau holding to the transcendentalist of it. Edwards’s strong, direct language quasi-pantheist veneration of nature— and the placement of a clear thesis at they meditate on the exact same image the beginning of his entry strengthen of water. In the chapter of Walden, “The his typological interpretation. Edwards Ponds,” and in Image no. 117 of Images moves to demonstrate his thesis through of Divine Things, Thoreau and Edwards a description of the water’s “flattering ap- both reflect on the image of a pond which pearance.” He writes, “How smooth and is so clear and still that it reflects the harmless does the water oftentimes ap- sky in its surface. A close reading of Ed- pear, and as if it had paradise and heav- wards and Thoreau’s accounts of a still en in its bosom. Thus when we stand on lake or pond reveals a striking similarity the banks of a lake or river, how flattering in these two writers’ techne. They create and pleasing does it oftentimes appear, parallel discourses on water, asserting as though under were pleasant and de- the water’s significance, describing the lightful groves and bowers, or even heav- water vividly, then finally imagining a en itself in its clearness …” Here Edwards descent into the water. However, despite uses vivid imagery of heaven reflected on these similarities, they arrive at conflict- a lake’s surface to illustrate the compar-

14 ison between such water and deceptive its special attributes. The characteristic sin. His use of “we” invites the reader to that merits such elevation is Walden’s join him in a communal memory and em- “purity.” Thoreau will spend the body of pathize with his rendering of the image, this description of Walden discussing its drawing her into his pleasing description color. He describes Walden’s color as be- of the water’s beatific appearance. The ing “blue at one time and green at an- clarity of Edwards’s thesis, combined other,” and recalls, “I have discerned a with his succinct but vivid imagery of the matchless and indescribable blue light, water, creates a firm foundation for his such as watered or changeable silks interpretation. and sword blades suggest, more cerule- Thoreau’s thesis, however, is more an than the sky itself.” Such is the pu- nuanced. He begins his first account of rity and beauty of Walden that all other Walden Pond, “The scenery of Walden ponds are merely “yellowish” and “but is on a humble scale, and, though very muddy by comparison.” The contrast be- beautiful, does not approach to gran- tween Walden’s purity and other ponds’ deur, nor can it much concern one who muddiness lends Walden a special qual- has not long frequented it or lived by its ity, as if it possessed some goodness in- shore; yet this pond is so remarkable for herent in itself. Furthermore, like Ed- its depth and purity as to merit a par- wards, Thoreau notes the reflection of ticular description.” Thoreau here may the sky on the water’s surface. He writes of Walden: “Lying between the earth and The contrast between the heavens, it partakes of the color of both,” and notes again times when “the Walden’s purity and surface of the waves may reflect the sky.” other ponds’ Noting Walden’s purity enables Thoreau to argue that it “partakes” of both heaven muddiness lends and earth, essentially acting as a media- Walden a special tor between the two—physically, but also symbolically. Moreover, by claiming that quality, as if it Walden’s color is “more cerulean than the possessed some sky itself,” Thoreau elevates the water above heaven. Giving Walden this heav- goodness inherent enly quality suggests a symbolic essence of the water and prompts the reader to in itself. consider the double meaning of “puri- seem almost self-deprecating, but buried ty”—physically, in terms of color, but in this unassuming start is a quiet thesis, also metaphysically, through ontological which Thoreau will aim to demonstrate value. through his description of the pond. By Although Edwards and Thoreau stating that Walden is humble and with- have thus differed slightly in form, with out grandeur, then claiming that it is Thoreau creating a more nuanced thesis, nevertheless “remarkable,” Thoreau ele- the real deviation comes after their par- vates Walden above other landscapes or allel musings of a descent into the water bodies of water that seem more grand. He and the consequences of such an action. differs from Edwards in that he does not Edwards, after describing the “paradise propose to address a universal image of and heaven” depicted on the water’s sur- water, but rather one specific body and face, sharply reasserts his thesis: “But

15 indeed, it is all a cheat.” He subsequent- making fit studies for a Michael Angelo.” ly envisions a hypothetical scenario in The purity and unearthliness that ap- which he and the reader are successful- peared in the water are shown to be true ly tempted to enter into the water: “If we by a descent into it. Furthermore, Tho- should descend into it, instead of finding reau’s bather is also transformed—not by pleasant, delightful groves and garden death but by apotheosis—as she becomes of pleasure, and heaven in its clearness, a living work of art “fit for a Michael An- we should meet with nothing but death, gelo,” perhaps like Pieta or David. At the a land of darkness, or darkness itself.” end of this passage on Walden, Thoreau In Edwards’s account of a descent into finally asserts his typological reading of the water, he emphasizes the “cheat” of Walden, as water that is not only pure the image and the stark contrast between in its appearance but which also purifies appearance and reality. The “garden of those who experience it. Such a transfor- mation, in which the bather transcends Edwards’s tone her own humanity, reveals the duality of meaning in Thoreau’s “purity.” The pure and use of the appearance of Walden—unlike any other hypothetical “if” water—transfigures whoever is willing to embrace it. So, too, does an intellectual demarcate this embrace of Walden—seeing it for its true passage as an urgent “remarkable” self—enable a purification and transcendence of the mind. warning, rather than Ultimately, Edwards and Thoreau were able to arrive at these contrasting mere naturalistic interpretations because of their differ- description. ing methodologies. In composing their accounts of lakes, they drew from differ- pleasure,” with its Edenic connotations, ent sources and operated out of clash- is exposed as “a land of darkness.” Ed- ing ideological frameworks. Edwards’s wards’s tone and use of the hypothetical source for his typology was vast, as he “if” demarcate this passage as an urgent cited Scripture to confirm his interpre- warning, rather than mere naturalistic tations of nature. In Image no. 156 Ed- description. Whoever descends into the wards writes, water, in Edwards’s account, undergoes “The Book of Scripture is the interpreter a sort of transformation; the water does of the book of nature two ways: viz. by not purify, however, but kills and trans- declaring to us those spiritual myster- ies that are indeed signified or typified forms those in it into “death.” in the constitution of the natural world; Thoreau’s account, though paral- and secondly, in actually making appli- lel in his inclusion of a descent into the cation of the signs and types in the book pond, could not be more different from of nature as representations of those Edwards’s. Expanding on his thesis of spiritual mysteries in many instances.” Walden’s purity, Thoreau writes, “This Here Edwards clearly presents water is of such crystalline purity that the Scripture as the foundational interpreta- body of the bather appears of an alabaster tive tool through which nature should be whiteness, still more unnatural, which, read. In Image no. 117 in particular, Ed- as the limbs are magnified and distort- wards connects his reading of lakes back ed withal, produces a monstrous effect, to Scripture. He concludes the entry with

16 a footnote: “Prov. 5:3-6,” which is a ref- has not been there. Moreover, in a tone erence to the “forbidden woman” whose of righteous indignation, Thoreau con- appearance is pleasing and flattering— cludes “The Ponds”: “Talk of heaven! Ye like Edwards’s lake—but whose “feet go disgrace earth.” This spirited conclusion down to death.” Although his naturalis- reaffirms Thoreau’s own elevation of tic observations and typological logic are earth over heaven and his emphasis on sound in themselves, Edwards presents a nature-centric typology, revealing the Scripture as his final evidence. Although heart of difference between Edwards and these verses do not mention water, they himself. use metaphor to demonstrate the same Despite these differences, Edwards type of sin, corruption, and consequent and Thoreau both acknowledge the spir- misery as Edwards’s thesis, thus com- itual significance of nature and its inten- municating the same absolute truth. tional symbolism. In Image no. 57, Ed- Additionally, Image of Divine Things dis- wards writes, plays an extensive consideration of wa- ‘Tis very fit and becoming of God, ter, as Edwards examines water in its who is infinitely wise, so to order things vicissitudes and uses biblical references that there should be a voice of his in to interpret it. These include: Image no. his works instructing those that behold 15, flowing rivers are the effusions of the them, and pointing forth and showing Spirit; Image no. 27, the stormy sea is divine mysteries and things more imme- the wrath of God; Image no. 77, the con- diately appertaining to himself and his fluence of rivers flowing in various direc- spiritual kingdom. The works of God are tions into the ocean is divine providence; but a kind of voice or language of God, to Image no. 155, spring streams that rise instruct intelligent beings in things per- then dry up again represent hypocrites; taining to himself. etc. This wide consideration of water al- For Edwards, a typological truth lows Edwards to make an informed, nu- embedded in nature is in accord with anced interpretation of a specific type of God’s wisdom and methods of instruc- water, which he supports with biblical tion. To extend typology from the Book text. of Scripture to the Book of Nature only By contrast, although Thoreau cites enhances God’s communication with writers, philosophers, and scientists humankind. By comparison, Thoreau, throughout Walden, he does not explic- though deviating sharply from orthodox itly draw on extratextual sources when Christianity, also posits an intentional, developing his account of the pond. In- truth-laden symbolism inherent in na- stead, he relies on his own empirical ob- ture. Concerning Walden, he writes, “I am servations and poetic insight. He, too, thinking that this pond was made deep is painstaking in his interpretation, as and pure for a symbol.” This language of he seems to describe exhaustively, even intentional symbolism—being “made for” through seasonal changes. Yet his obser- a symbol—communicates a natural ty- vations are limited by his focus on only pology similar to Edwards’s. Ultimately, one pond—he can cannot come to a uni- Edwards and Thoreau’s differing typolo- versal conclusion about ponds or lakes. gies of lakes both point to the universal Even if his interpretation of Walden was symbolism of nature and its epiphanic, correct, it would be lost on anyone who not just aesthetic, value.

17 MAN VS. SCRUBJAY JOSEPHA NATZKE

It was when he stepped out on the porch faced a sunrise hidden behind headache clouds when the floorboards twitched and creaked under his swollen feet

That he felt his dry eyes and thin skin tighten against a windstorm of a day strained button-holes and stained pits groan against a hellhole of a day empty cupboards and a cold bed waiting at the end of a day

And that the bird in the tree looked like such an unattainable thing, smug in bloated privilege, in beady-eyed pride; sucker of eggs with a jarring, senseless cry with scrawny greased wings that could bear its own heavy, gaudy weight and plunder off into the overcast sky

18 VISITOR JONATHAN WRIGHT

Dog drained of blood sideways four paws groping the air stiff with rigor mortis

It clung to the floor of the kitchen its hair stuck to the floor of the kitchen no one knew why it was there not our dog we said just turned on the light and there it was mom said

Off-white hair on the white tile long white hair that covered its eyes things come and go this thing came

I asked dad if we should bury it he said no just call the pest control

19 THE WAKING PLACE THOMAS WILDER

or a little over a month, I took a picture of the room where I woke up each morn- ing. This point of waking up is underlined in relation to the rest of waking life as Fa result of the time that came before it. It is emphasized because for the last five to eight hours, the sleeping person has had no choice in affecting his or her surround- ings. These pictures serve as a concentrated dose of my reality each morning because of the number of hours that came before it, during which I could not affect my circum- stances or condition.

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 It is certainly true, at any rate, that DEATH AND this prejudice gave rise to Nietzsche’s own disdain for metaphysics, which followed DARWINISM: directly from his conviction that “the world is the will to power—and nothing A PATRISTIC else besides!” For Nietzsche, the world is in actuality nothing but a cacophonous APPROACH play of flux and warfare, and so to think ‘metaphysically’ about the world is really CHRISTOPHER IACOVETTI just to conceal whichever its features one finds inexplicable or unpleasant (while dubbing sacred whichever of its features happen to serve one’s interests). The only t’s all but impossible to overstate the honest and “yes-saying” way to approach theological importance of the doc- the world, argues Nietzsche, is with a Itrine of the Fall. Most basically, the self-deprecating refusal to tame its hid- Fall is what allows Christian theology to eous disorder: that is, to refuse to really meaningfully draw a distinction between distinguish good from evil, sacred from the world’s present state and its proper profane, prelapsarian from postlapsari- state, i.e., between how the world is and an. how it ought to be. Without recourse to And so Nietzsche’s hatred of Chris- the Fall, there are essentially just two tianity makes perfect sense. By assert- interpretations of our world to choose ing that our world exists in a deeply cor- from: nihilism on the one hand (there are rupted state, Christian theology refuses no ‘oughts’ in reality; all ‘ought’-claims to attribute ultimate reality to death, are therefore mere expressions of pow- ugliness, and evil (which ‘exist’ only as er or preference), and dualism on the negative parasites upon the original life, other (there are two opposite but equal- beauty, and goodness of creation). It ly legitimate ‘oughts’ in reality, either of stubbornly insists that, despite all ap- which one may reasonably and ‘ethically’ pearances to the contrary, the self-sac- choose to prefer).1 rificial love of Christ is more fundamen- Thanks largely to the ubiquitous tally true to reality than, say, the egotism influence of Nietzsche on postmodern of Donald Trump; that the beauty of thought, the former route has been that marital consummation is more funda- taken by the majority of prominent 20th mentally real than hideousness of rape; century philosophers. As John Milbank and so forth. But if Nietzsche is correct in and others have argued, this ‘nihilistic’ deeming violence more real than peace, Nietzschean rejection of metaphysical love, and beauty (or even if he is correct ought-claims is what unites thinkers as in deeming violence real at all), he is cer- otherwise diverse as Heidegger, Deleuze, tainly also correct in finding Christianity Foucault, and Derrida.2 And, as Mil- pathetic and dishonest. bank and others have somewhat more Which brings me back to the sub- controversially argued, this rejection of ject of the Fall. The Fall is the means metaphysics is itself rooted in a preju- by which Christian theology accounts dice which underlies the thought of both for the disparity between the purported Nietzsche and his postmodern heirs: character of God and the tragic state of namely, that reality is fundamentally vi- our world. As David Bentley Hart quite olent and internally conflicted.

29 correctly notes, Christianity requires one ulous as Nietzsche accused it of being.4 to stubbornly But there is an at least apparent see two realities at once, one world (as it problem here. Following Darwin, it in- were) within another: one the world as we creasingly appears that the world’s strife, all know it, in all its beauty and terror, death, and corruption in fact have been grandeur and dreariness, delight and an- present and endemic from the world’s be- guish; and the other the world in its first ginning, entering the world prior to not and ultimate truth, not simply ‘nature’ but only the sin but even the emergence of ‘creation,’ an endless sea of glory, radiant homo sapiens. And thus, by all appear- with the beauty of God in every part, in- nocent of all violence. … Christian thought ances, Christianity’s account of an origi- from the outset, denies that (in themselves) nal ‘Fall’ into sin and death is essentially suffering, death, and evil have any ulti- gibberish. mate value or spiritual meaning at all. It There are a number of possible solu- claims that they are cosmic contingencies, tions to this problem offered (indirectly) ontological shadows, intrinsically devoid of by the Greek fathers, who set about in- substance or purpose, however much God terpreting the Fall and its consequences may—under the conditions of a fallen or- in various creative and daring ways. It’s der—make them the occasions for accom- obviously beyond the scope of my knowl- plishing his good ends.3 edge and space to present their views at length, but I hope, in the remainder of If Nietzsche is this essay, to gesture toward several pos- correct in deeming sible approaches to Darwinism that lie within the bounds of patristic orthodoxy. violence more real I’ll do so by briefly presenting four sur- than peace, love, and prisingly relevant insights we find in the fathers regarding creation and its Fall. beauty, he is also First, according to many of the correct in finding church’s fathers, the precise nature of the Fall’s occurrence is not something about Christianity pathetic which we can speak with much theolog- ical or dogmatic certainty. We know that and dishonest. “sin entered the world through one man, But if reality is not fallen, there is no and death through sin,” but very few fa- legitimate way for one to distinguish be- thers purport to know exactly how this tween the “two realities” Hart describes: occurred (Rom. 5:12). To offer just a few the true and false, the good and evil, the examples: Gregory of Nyssa explicitly original and the damaged. And any the- prefaces his speculations about the Fall’s ology which forfeits (or even fails to prop- consequences with an acknowledgement erly emphasize) its claim that reality has that they are only “conjectures and simil- been really fractured in some way—not itudes”; this being the case, he urges his by the design of a capricious and ma- readers to not receive them “authorita- nipulative God, but by the abuse of free tively.”5 Similarly, Maximus the Confes- human agency—is a theology devastated sor offers “two possible explanations of by Nietzsche’s critique. That is, if the cur- how [the Fall] came about,”6 leaving these rent, death-ridden state of our world is in two, mutually incompatible explanations any sense the true or original or divinely open to orthodox belief. In the West, Au- intended state of our world, then Chris- gustine pondered a number of theories tianity is every bit as cowardly and ridic-

30 regarding the Fall’s occurrence over the Ephrem’s words, “The tongue cannot course of his vast theological career, but relate the description of innermost Par- never settled conclusively on any one of adise, nor indeed does it suffice for the them. And so forth. This open lack of cer- beauties of the outer part; for even the titude among the fathers regarding the simple adornments by the Garden’s fence precise ‘how’ of the Fall must be kept in cannot be related in an adequate way.”9 mind as we think through the Fall’s rela- And while Ephrem grants that we can tion to Darwinism and death. speak in figurative and analogous - lan guage of our Edenic home, he frequent- Augustine pondered ly points out that we can only do even this much because Paradise graciously a number of theories “[clothes] itself in terms that our akin regarding the Fall’s to [us].”10 Sergius Bulgakov is therefore adopting one quite viable patristic (not occurrence over the modernist) approach when he writes that course of his vast neither the past of the world when man was without sin nor the new heaven and theological career, new earth of the future age can be known from the life of the present age, for they are but never settled separated from the present age by a cer- tain transcensus. From this point of view it conclusively on any becomes understandable and natural that, one of them. on our earth, no traces of Eden or of the edenic original state of man can be found. Second, several of the fathers explic- They are in fact not found in our world, al- itly suggest that due to the Fall’s cosmic though this does not mean that there were and epistemic consequences, we cannot no such traces in the past or even that they in any adequate way know or compre- do not exist even now —in the depths of hend what came ‘before’ its occurrence. the world’s being if not in its empirical re- As Augustine puts it, the redeemed mind ality. Adam’s fall was a catastrophe that “recalls its Lord” and knows that it for- changed the fate of the world. It was an merly fell from grace, but “has totally for- impenetrable wall that separated his origi- gotten” and “cannot even be reminded” nal state from his later state, so that in the of the Edenic happiness it knew before later state one can no longer find traces of the original state (except in obscure anam- somehow falling in Adam.7 Gregory of nesis, slumbering in the human soul).11 Nyssa heavily implies a similar disjunc- And Hart elaborates upon this same tion between pre- and postlapsarian re- patristic sentiment: “The fall of rational ality throughout books 16-18 of On the creation and the subjection of the cos- Making of Man (and really, throughout mos to death is something that appears the entirety of his corpus). And the poetic to us nowhere within the unbroken time theology of Ephrem the Syrian, perhaps of nature or history … it belongs to an- most forcefully of all, not only involves other frame of time, another kind of time, but logically requires a radical epistemic one more real than the time of death.”12 distance between our world and Paradise. The Christian is by no means obliged to This is because for Ephrem, as Sebastian take as strong a stance here as do Hart or Brock notes, “Paradise was not to be sit- Bulgakov, but the stance they represent uated in time or space; rather, it belonged is evidently patristic in its pedigree and to a different order of reality.”8 Thus, in hence available as an orthodox option.

31 Third, and somewhat more crucial- The division of humanity into sexes is ly, according to certain patristic accounts thus not part of what Gregory calls God’s of the Fall, God’s foreknowledge of sin eternally intended “first creation” (which allowed certain consequences of Adam’s will exist only in God’s creative intention sin to sequentially precede the sin itself. until its eschatological actualization), but As Conor Cunningham puts it, “Creation of God’s “second” creation (which God was intended to be perfect, and this eter- brought into actual existence in light of nal intention is its true nature; but God’s His foreknowledge of human history and foreknowledge of man’s sin eschatologi- sin). Gregory goes even further: God im- cally ordered creation toward Christ and planted not only the division of sexes into thus to perfection.”13 humans in light of His foreknowledge of Perhaps the most profound elucida- sin, but also the “animal and irrational tion of this view is offered by Gregory of mode [of procreation] by which [humans] Nyssa in books 16-18 of his On the Mak- now succeed one another” (17.4). And the ing of Man.14 Having raised the question various passions which incline us to sin, of how God, who is utterly impassible and Gregory asserts, “issue as from a spring” neither male nor female, is aptly imaged from the “animal mode of generation” im- planted in us from the beginning (18.1- The division of 2).16 To a large degree, Maximus follows humanity into Gregory in these speculations. While he sexes is thus not part is happy, like Gregory, to speak at times of Adam falling from a paradisal state of what Gregory [of and into corruption, he makes clear in Nyssa] calls God’s his Ambiguum 8 that he does not under- stand such a fall to have necessarily hap- eternally intended pened in a literally sequential fashion. In “first creation” addressing the question of how man fell into a state of passibility and corruption, by passible and gendered humans, Greg- he raises “two possible explanations of ory suggests that the “creation of our [hu- how this came about,” the latter of which man] nature is in a sense two-fold: one is quite similar to that of Gregory: made like to God, one divided according One possibility is that God, at the very to this distinction [of sex]” (16.8). In other moment humanity fell, blended our soul words, as Cunningham summarizes, “be- together with our body on account of the cause God knew of man’s future sin, and transgression, and endowed it with the ca- that it would lead to death, he bestowed pacity to undergo change, just as he gave the body the capacity to suffer, undergo on man the ability to procreate, thus sav- corruption, and be wholly dissolved. The ing him from extinction.”15 Gregory spells other possibility is that from the beginning this out clearly: God, in his foreknowledge, formed the soul perceiving beforehand by His power of in the aforesaid way because he foresaw the foreknowledge what, in a state of indepen- coming transgression, so that by suffering dence and freedom, is the tendency of the and experiencing evil on its own, the soul motion of man’s will He devised for His would come to an awareness of itself and image the distinction of male and female, its proper dignity, and even gladly embrace which has no reference to the Divine Ar- detachment with respect to the body.17 chetype. (16.14) What we find in both Maximus and Gregory, then, is a willingness to sequen-

32 tially place various effects of the Fall pri- become stronger than death and would or to their cause. One is free to find this live forever.”21 Conversely, if Adam failed line of speculation uncompelling, but it to observe the commandment, “then he cannot be called foreign to patristic tra- would be subject to death and corrup- dition.18 And while, admittedly, Gregory tion.”22 Damascene finishes by explain- and Maximus never extend their specu- ing that “it was not profitable for [man] lations quite far enough to accommodate to attain incorruptibility while yet untried today’s Darwinian data, it seems obvious and untested”23 as did the angels (since that they open the door for post-Darwin- this would result in his being eternally ian Christians to do so responsibly. Once trapped in sin after the Fall). literalism regarding the sequence of the The significance of this common- Fall and its consequences is understood as non-crucial, there is ample room for Even if one is theology to understand itself in light of evidence of prelapsarian death. committed to a The fourth and final point to keep literally sequential in mind is perhaps the most important of all, inasmuch as it demonstrates that Fall into sin and even if one is committed to a literally se- death, there is quential Fall into sin and death, there is nevertheless still room for Darwinism in nevertheless still patristic theology. For a sizable majority room for Darwinism of the fathers, it was not from an actual state of immortality that Adam fell, but place patristic teaching—that “[God] did a merely potential one. According to one not make [man] mortal, nor did He fash- venerable Greek patristic tradition, man ion him as immortal”24—lies in the fact was created “between mortality and im- that it leaves wide open the possibility, mortality,” as the bridge between animal perhaps even probability, that the an- and angelic creation. This notion runs imal creation below humanity was not at least as far back as Irenaeus, who graced with immortality upon the world’s thought Adam and Eve to have been cre- creation. After all, for most of the Greek ated as naturally mortal spiritual chil- fathers, animalistic passions were inex- dren en route to immortality. In ‘falling,’ tricably tied to mortality and sexual pro- Adam turned away from this upward tra- creation. If animals procreated sexually jectory and toward his “naturally” mortal prior to Adam’s fall, there is every logi- trajectory of sin and death.19 As Athana- cal reason to think that they died or at sius writes in On the Incarnation, “[God] least were mortal before it as well (though gave [human beings] a law, so that if they Augustine’s conjecture that prelapsarian guarded the grace and remained good, animals died in a less predatory way than they might have the life of paradise … be- they now do remains plausible). And if sides having the promise of their incor- animals were mortal before the Fall, there ruptibility in heaven.”20 Similarly, John of is no inherent problem with the sugges- Damascus avers that God gave Adam the tion that homo sapiens arrived at the end commandment in Eden “with the prom- of a naturally mortal hominid chain with ise that should he let reason prevail, rec- the potential for immortality—a potential ognizing his creator and observing his that homo sapiens lost when it tended to- Creator’s ordinance … then he would ward matter rather than God.25

33 The foregoing ought to indicate that fully succeeded in opening up vistas for Darwinism poses no necessary threat to meaningful conversation between con- patristic theology, even if one is commit- temporary Darwinism and patristic the- ted to a sequential reading of the Fall and ology. Such conversation serves not only its consequences. The fathers’ thought is to help us better understand the natu- more than capacious enough to accom- ral world we inhabit, but also the theo- modate whatever biology, geology, and logical vision passed down to us by the prehistory tell us about our lineage. And fathers—a vision which we are called to while this essay has necessarily only both preserve and keep vibrantly alive presented the thought of the fathers on from age to age. the Fall in a cursory way, it has hope-

NOTES

1 And really, even this form of dualism ap- fundamental plane of reality beyond both good pears to be little more than a sheltered and and evil. subtle variation of nihilism. To postulate, as the Manicheans did, that two coeternal, co- 2 See John Milbank, Theology and Social existent, and equally ‘real’ forces exist along- Theory: Beyond Secular Reason (Oxford: Ba- side one another — one ‘good,’ the other ‘evil’ sil Blackwell, 1990), as well as David Bentley — is really just to deny that either force truly Hart, The Beauty of the Infinite: The Aesthetics transcends the immanent frame of finite re- of Christian Truth (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. ality. These warring forces may function as Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2003). two big and powerful beings among littler and less powerful beings, but neither is ‘real’ in a 3 David Bentley Hart, The Doors of the Sea: unique or self-subsistent way. As such, these Where Was God in the Tsunami? (Grand Rap- forces can conceivably exist only within an ids: W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2005), ontological frame larger and therefore ‘more 60-61. real’ than themselves, a frame which exists beyond and hence transcends them both. And 4 I happily acknowledge that this claim (if cor- this commits dualism to belief in a nihilistic, rect) rules out the possibility of any extreme

34 brand of being true. For if, as Calvin viously, is whether Gregory’s view does not claimed in Book III of his Institutes, God coer- somehow implicate God in the Fall. Gregory cively foreordained the Fall for his own “plea- and Maximus both wrestled indefinitely with sure” and eventual “glory” — and thereby also this question, but, as far as I’m aware, arrived ordained all the deaths, rapes, disasters, and at no final answer. See On the Cosmic Mystery infant-damnations which are its consequenc- of Jesus Christ, 75n. es — then the Christian saga of creation, fall, 17 Maximus, On the Cosmic Mystery of Jesus and redemption is really just one, hideously Christ, 76. enormous fiction (i.e., fantasy), and the divine and human actions which occur within it are 18 Space didn’t allow for another example in really just instances of one, hideously enor- the paper, but John of Damascus speculates mous act of divine self-gratification. further along these lines in On the Orthodox Faith II, 30. Troublingly, but importantly for 5 Gregory, On the Making of Man, 16.15 our purposes here, he suggests that Eve was created due to God’s foreknowledge of the Fall. 6 Maximus, Ambiguum 8. This short work can be found in its entirety on pgs. 75-78 of On the 19 See Cunningham, Darwin’s Pious Idea, Cosmic Mystery of Jesus Christ: Selected Writ- 379-380, as well as M.C. Steenberg, Irenaeus ings of St. Maximus the Confessor, trans. Paul on Creation: The Cosmic Christ and the Saga M. Blowers and Robert Louis Wilken (Crest- of Redemption (Leiden: Brill Academic, 2008), wood, N.Y.: St. Vladmir’s Seminary Press, 121-123, 126. 2003). 20 Athanasius, On the Incarnation: Saint Atha- 7 Augustine, On the Trinity, XIV, 21, trans. Ed- nasius, trans. John Behr (Crestwood, N.Y.: St. mund Hill. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2011), 52. Empha- sis added. 8 St. Ephrem the Syrian: Hymns on Paradise, trans. Sebastian Brock (Crestwood, N.Y.: St. 21 John of Damascus, On the Orthodox Faith, Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1997), 51. Empha- II, 30. Emphases added. sis added. 22 Ibid. 9 Ibid., 99-100. Emphases added. 23 Ibid. Emphasis added. 10 Ibid., 156. 24 Ephrem the Syrian, Commentary on Gene- 11 Sergius Bulgakov, The Bride of the Lamb, sis, II, 17. Quoted on pg. 59 of Hymns on Par- trans. Boris Jakim (Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerd- adise. mans Publishing Co., 2002), 171-172. 25 Again, see John of Damascus, On the Or- 12 Hart, The Doors of the Sea, 102. thodox Faith, II, 30. There is also every reason to think, in light of both Romans 8:19-22 and 13 Conor Cunningham, Darwin’s Pious Idea: the cosmically-geared theology of Maximus, Why the Ultra-Darwinists and the Creationists that humans had the potential (and now, in Both Get It Wrong (Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerd- Christ, again have the potential) to lead not mans Publishing Co., 2010), 399. only themselves but ultimately all creation into deification and immortality. Their fall re- 14 Unless otherwise noted, parenthetical cita- sulted in a gradual corruption of both their tions below are to this text. own race and the cosmos (cf. Gen. 3-11, as well as Athanasius’ elegant narration of the 15 Cunningham, Darwin’s Pious Idea, 391. Fall in the early chapters of De incarnatione), but the second Adam has come and re-opened 16 The perplexing question this raises, ob- the door that the first Adam failed to enter.

35 ASCENSION AMANDA LAKY

In a vast ballroom With quartz gardens Growing upside down I began to tend to the gardens And harvest the quartz yearly

Floating on the bass line current I did not have to tread the Fluidity of the violet photons They help me, held my hands

Each time I take communion I remember the first time I took of the Bread-body Wine-blood And did not choke

All currents flow towards you Do this in remembrance of me

The art deco luminaries Are omnipresent Above all, watching

I don’t think I need violet lights, The feeling of floating Without fear of drowning Do this in remembrance of me

But I do float And find rest in the crafted violet baptism The currents always cause me To arrive at you Do this in remembrance of me

36