1

Fusion: Knox College Theology Journal “Promoting awareness of, and respect for, the various faith systems represented at Knox College”

2

Editor’s Letter

Dear Reader,

It is our sincere privilege and pleasure to present to you the first issue of “Fusion: Knox College Theology Journal.” A lot of conceptualizing, planning, presenting, writing, editing, re-writing and more editing, have taken place to bring to print what was, only a few months ago, an idea.

We hope that this journal will go a long way toward bridging some of the gaps of understanding that still separate us from one another. We believe it is always necessary to think and speak intelligently about issues concerning faith. Ignorance breeds distrust and mere tolerance is just another excuse to remain disinterested toward the beliefs, that others esteem, and value.

This is why the underlying theme for the first issue is demystification; that is, the majority of the writers have chosen topics that give them an opportunity to clarify misunderstood concepts about the faiths they adhere to, or towards which they express a profound interest. The breadth of the topics covered is indicative of the religious diversity and curiosity at Knox.

Another reason why we decided to start this journal is to rekindle the centrality of faith in everyday life. Often, obtaining a liberal arts education is equated to the triumph of secularism or modernity. This is misleading. If anything, at least for the two of us, the Knox experience continues to challenge and affirm our belief that faith is perhaps the most important thing anyone has, whether this happens consciously or unconsciously. Reel back the clock to 1837, and we would probably find the founders of Knox nodding their heads in agreement, as evidenced by the College’s first Constitution. The “ineffable,” it seems, has merit and virtue we cannot simply ignore on the basis of being rational, educated or postmodern, whatever that means. Religion and faith are so much more than paradigms that incite division. We invite you to consider this point with the gravity it deserves.

Although it is tempting to box in faith as an expression of culture, we contend that culture is actually a subsidiary of faith; that is, culture thrives because faith, or the thing in which each of us is most invested, animates it, as it does all aspects of life. Finding out about someone’s culture may help you get a feel for that person, but understanding their faith, religion, creed of life, or whatever you like to call it, truly gets to the raw substance of who they are and what they stand for. How can we say we appreciate one another if we don’t even know what we’re appreciating?

To conclude, this journal is not groundbreaking in any shape or form; rather, it is a continuation of our desire to learn from, and grow with, one another. We appreciate you taking the time to read what’s inside and hope that it provokes and raises questions as is only consistent with the quintessential liberal arts experience.

Sincerely Yours,

Yumna Rathore & Kyle Cruz

Co-Editors-in-Chief

3

Editorial Board

Kyle Cruz & Yumna Rathore, Co-Editors-in-Chief

Andrei Papancea, Web Designer

Hali Engelman, Supriya Kasaju, & Kevin Wirasamban, Publishing Editors

James Thrall, Knight Distinguished, Assistant Professor, Religious Studies Program, Adviser

4

Acknowledgements

“Fusion: Knox College Theology Journal” was conceived to promote awareness of and appreciation for the various belief systems represented at Knox College. We are extremely grateful to Assistant Professor of Religious Studies James Thrall, for so enthusiastically embracing our vision and assisting in the founding of this journal.

We would also like to extend our thanks to the Broadcast, Internet and Publications Committee chaired by Professor Andrew Civettini of the Political Science Department. Without their gracious approval for the founding of the journal in the middle of Fall Term, we would not be at this stage in the journal’s development.

Furthermore, special thanks also go to Andrei Papancea for designing the journal’s website (fusionatknox.com), to Hali Engelman for creating the journal’s logo and letterhead, and to Supriya Kasaju for formatting the journal and crafting the inaugural issue’s lotus cover image.

Lastly, we are grateful to all the writers who contributed their time, energy, and creativity to the Journal.

Disclaimer

“Fusion: Knox College Theology Journal” does not endorse any of the positions taken by any of the authors. These articles are simply a means to encourage discourse. Any content taken to be demeaning will be subject to the strictest criteria of scrutiny and, if necessary, revision. At its heart, the Journal does not seek to endorse any particular view but desires to remain as neutral as possible in its selection of material.

Subscription

The Journal is freely published on its website (fusionatknox.com).

Copyright Policy

The Journal claims full copyright to all the articles published in it, unless indicated otherwise by any of the authors.

5

Table of Contents

Yumna Rathore 5. Fear of the Veil: Suppression of

Muslim Women in France

Tanvi Madhusudanan 8. Karma in Hinduism

Chelsea Coventry 11. Mary in Catholic Theology

Kyle Cruz 13. Rejoicing in Tribulation: The

Christian View of Suffering

Benjamin Greuter 19. Nietzsche Was Right, Elitist Views

Aside

24. About the Authors

25. Other Contributors

6

Fear of the Veil: Suppression of Muslim Women in France Yumna Rathore

In the holy book of the Quran, Allah discusses “modest dressing” on many occasions. However, what he had to say on this issue can be interpreted in a myriad of different ways, which poses a number of problems. In other words, what could be considered as modest attire differs from person to person. Some would suggest it requires covering of every part of the body including the eyes. Others would claim only women should abide by this rule. Due to misinterpretations by a few individuals, I would argue that there is suppression, not of women, but of the definition of the veil. There is anger and confusion, not because of Islam, but because of certain policies that are misinterpreted and enforced. It is important to understand differences between the veil and the Burqa, discuss controversies in Islam and problems associated with the Burqa-banning law in France. Regardless of the excuses and justifications given for or against the Burqa, ultimately it is a choice and should not be forced or banned.

Before discussing arguments for and against the Burqa, the difference between the veil and Burqa should be clear. A veil is what a lot of Muslim women wear in more modern nations such as Pakistan and Indonesia. It is the covering of the hair, usually worn with full-sleeves shirts and full length wear. The point is of wearing loose-fitted clothes to not attract the opposite sex. For women, dressing modestly includes covering of hair on the head, full arms till wrists and full legs till ankles. The veil is considered as a less ‘strict’ and more ‘modern’ form of Muslim attire. The Burqa is a type of clothing people have invented and invested in as it is an easy-to-wear cloth which covers everything. It is many times a big black sheet that covers the entire body, sometimes eyes included. It is important to note that the clothes that one is supposed to wear is a general requirement for praying, not mandatory in all public places. Instead what is preferred by Allah is modest dressing which could well be a shirt and a pair of jeans and need not be a strictly black cloth over every part of the women’s body.

This distorted definition of the Burqa has been extended to suppress other parts of a woman’s life. For example, some people believe that a woman who wears a Burqa is not allowed to work or go outside without a male companion. This is a false claim as the prophet Muhammad’s wife, Hazrat Katijah, was a successful business woman so not only was she working but it required her to go out often too even with the veil on. It is important to note that men are also supposed to dress modestly with covering of their knees and above. However, the criticism of the Burqa persists as it is seen as “anti-women” (Chesler 2010).

The problem is further blown out of proportion when the “modest dressing” aspect of one’s life is defined by a few government officials and written in the official constitution. In places like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan it is a forced policy for all women to wear the Burqa. However, forcing someone to wear something is just as wrong as banning someone from wearing what they wish, such is the case in France and Belgium. As of September 2010, the French senate has approved the Burqa ban. The law passed by 246 to 1 votes, with 100 abstentions (Zaretsky 2010). Many Muslim women living in France have spoken against this, claiming that the law targets them as a minority religious group.

It is important to note that the law also applied to Sikh Turbans as well as Jewish skullcaps, but many believe that given the accounts of 1989 the law targeted the Muslim headscarf. In 1989, three Muslim girls in middle school were sanctioned as they refused to take off their headscarves. This problem repeated many times later on in 1994 and 2003. The

7

government banned any sign of “conspicuous sign of affiliation.”(Zaretsky 2010). Scholars, like Scott, talk about other signs of differences that are attached with Muslims. Examples include men with distinct appearances such as beards and loose clothing and with distinct behaviors such as prayers and food preferences (Scott 2007). However, these are not considered threatening enough and so there is no legal action against them. With an estimated five million Muslims living in France, around 8 percent of the population, this form of French secularism seems unjust to many.

The French form of democracy has an added axiom that to be French one has to conform to set ideals and principles, which also involves common religious and cultural norms of society. So any group comprising of a different set of cultural values is considered a threat. When discussing history behind these conformity-obsessed principles, scholars find a common theme reoccurring imitating a pattern from 1940. The authoritarian Vichy regime then looked out to ban all “anti-French” elements that threatened national security and survival and so Jews were looked upon as outsiders, barred from many professions and rights (Zaretsky 2010). This case was a little different, as Jews were actually forced to wear the Star of David on outer clothing, but the concept was the same.

Unfortunately, even scholars condone the banning of the Burqa because they believe that it curbs a woman’s liberty (Berlinski 2010). Scholars claim that when given the choice to wear the Burqa, many women are forced to wear it, often marked by violence and intimidation at home. One such case is that of Aqsa Parvez, a 16 year old who was murdered by her father and brother after fleeing home. In this particular case, it was the objection to wearing the veil that led to the hostile intra-family relation and eventual death of the girl as she “jeopardized family pride” (Granados 2010). Some scholars also highlight that the Quran has unequal punishments for men and women. Men can also have multiple wives while women cannot and thus “women are naturally, morally and religiously defective” and inferior to men (Granados 2010). Scholars, like Luis, justify the banning of the Burqa and eventually even the veil as essential to saving these lives of women and “as a conscious tactic to allow the greater freedom to prevail” (Granados 2010). Some say that the Burqa is a reminder of a series of other intolerant behaviors specific to Islam such as whipping, flogging, hanging, stoning and beheading human beings, and that women wearing Burqas haunt those masses who have fled the countries in hopes of escaping such symbols (Chesler 2010).

The justifications provided for the ban of the Burqa are not very convincing. The Burqa does not violate anyone’s normal way of life. Issues of domestic violence and other psychotic cases are prevalent in many places and religion is often times used as an excuse. Moreover, there are many specific cases that people can point to even in other religions such as Christianity and Judaism. Islam is not the only religion with patriarchal concepts (Scott 2007). It is important to look at the positive things written in the Quran scripture such as the permission to ask for divorce by the wife if treated unjustly by the husband. Also, while the husband may be allowed four wives, history shows this comes from a time where there were a great number of widows and thus the prophet Muhammad married them to support their financial needs. The Quran also discourages men from marrying more than one woman if they are unable to financially support them. So the problem of the Burqa, in simple terms, is defined as an Islam-phobic reaction to the current changes of the world order as problems of terrorism are wrongly correlated with Islam.

The wearing of the veil coupled with the current political issues around the world has given rise to a xenophobic reaction towards Muslim women. When the veil extends into a Burqa, a tipping point is reached in many societies after which the government is the only

8

solution women have left to pursue. The misinterpreted views of government authorities as well as many Muslims have attached a stigma to the Burqa. There needs to be an attempt to educate people about the culture and reasoning for wearing the Burqa. Ultimately, it is upon every individual to practice religion as they see fit, an inherent right given to human beings by God.

Works Cited

1. Scott, J.W. (2007). Politics of the veil. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

2. Zaretsky, R. (2010). Uncovering the French ban on veils. Chronicle of Higher Education,

57 (4).

3. Chesler, P. (2010). The argument in favor. Middle East Quarterly, 17 (4), 33-45.

4. CNN Staff. (2010, September 14) French senate approves burqa ban. CNN World

Retreived March 25, 2011, from http://articles.cnn.com/2010-09-

14/world/france.burqa.ban_1_burqa-overt-religious-symbols-ban-last-

year?_s=PM:WORLD

5. Granados, L. (2010). Saving Aqsa Parvez. The Humanist, 70 (5), 18-21.

!" Berlinski, C. (2010, August 16). Ban the Burqa. National review, 62 (15), 38-40.#

9

Karma in Hinduism Tanvi Madhusudanan

Karma is an integral component of the myriad web of ideas and beliefs that make up Hinduism. Over the thousands of years of Hinduism’s existence, numerous scholars and philosophers have tried to pin down the exact role that karma plays in the life of Hindus. Although knowledge of the actual concept of karma differs among socioeconomic classes, most Hindus are aware of the idea of karma in at least its basic sense (Babb, 166).

The doctrine of karma can be used to explain all the events in an individual’s life, encompassing both the good and the bad. Although karma can be used to attribute causality for every situation, Hindu scripture doesn’t require its use. Therefore, it is a fallacy to assume that Hindus constantly use karma to describe every misfortune; at times they use more proximate causes such as personality characteristics or divine anger, and karma is used to explain only particular situations. According to Lawrence Babb, a professor of Asian Languages and Civilizations at Amherst College, we should look at karma as a frame of reference within Hinduism that can be used to explain situations rather than an all-encompassing law. Another frame of reference often used in India, which contrasts with karma, is that of “headwriting” or the Hindu explanation of fate, wherein even God cannot change the preconceived actions of all individuals that leads them blindly along certain paths (Babb, 172).

The most important aspect of karma in Hinduism is that it stresses personal responsibility in our lives and how our actions affect our futures. In some ways, karma can be compared to Newton’s Third Law in science. Rather than concerning itself solely with physical events claiming that to every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction, karma extends its explanations to moral and emotional occurrences as well. According to philosophers such as Karl Potter, the basic requirement for an individual who believes in karma is a belief in a naturalist system of ethics, i.e. one in which an individual aims to understand the consequences of his actions (Potter, 42).

In recent years in India, the doctrine of karma has largely been abandoned as the sole explanation for daily events as can be seen by religious movements such as the Bhakti movement, which adopt more God-centrism in events and consequences. Further proof that Hinduism is not governed solely by the doctrine of karma can be seen from the fact that the vast majority of Hindus do not always behave completely in accordance with it, but at times rely on theodicy and non-naturalist practices (Sharma, 350). Those who believe that Hinduism is governed solely in terms of karma, reincarnation and eventual attainment of nirvana are mistaken.

Like the religious triumvirate of Islam, Christianity and Judaism, Hinduism has very clear concepts of Heaven and Hell but these concepts are intertwined with that of karma. An individual with reprehensible actions in a particular life may have to serve some time in Hell before continuing on in his or her next life while one who has performed mainly good actions, may get to spend some time in Heaven before his or her next life. Furthermore, just as St. Peter guards the gates of heaven or Anubis weighs the heart before passing judgments, many Hindus believe that the god of death, Yamaraja, decides the total karmic influence of an individual’s actions in a particular birth and chooses to send him or her to Heaven, Hell or their next birth. Karmic retribution is more methodical as opposed to swift punishment; as Sharma says, individuals may be punished by being forced to undertake numerous rebirths

10

during which karmic consequences may manifest repeatedly before they are completely annulled (Sharma, 353).

Karma also has diffusive properties, such as when an individual experiences something tragic or something favorable, it is often attributed not just to their positive karma but also to that of their parents, and other close family members. This can be one explanation of the concept of honor in Hinduism, which is why individuals in a family, especially women, are so severely punished for behavior ruinous to their family’s “honor.” The karmic consequences of their dishonorable actions will not only affect them but other members of their family as well.

Another important aspect of karma is that it can be transferred from one individual to another as well, separately from its diffusive familial properties. For example, Sharma cites a Brahmin priest’s story of how a burglar reforms his ways when told by his son that the people he is robbing remain happy although their own family continues to suffer (Sharma, 352). Another manifestation of karma is when gods and goddesses of the Hindu pantheon punish individuals for reneging on promises they had made previously. For example, one woman’s senility and irrational behavior was attributed to her failure to make offerings to a local god (Sharma, 355).

In the lives of the majority of Hindus, karma is not used as the main factor of causality but is combined with others such as witchcraft/sorcery, divine anger and luck, especially in rural areas. Similarly, events in the future are controlled through these factors as well, such as karmic consequences from past lives can be combated through placating deities (Sharma, 357). However, karma can be seen as the final decider when it comes to the weight of an individual’s actions; even if he or she offers numerous offerings to the gods and goddesses, his or her total karma decides his or her fate. Contrary to popular belief, the karmic principle is not fatalistic; Hindus often actively seek out ways to alleviate bad karma by making offerings to gods, prayer, and performing good deeds, rather than just accepting their fate.

Most importantly, the concept of karma is open to individual interpretation; priests may speak of karma in their prayers or discourses, but there is no exact definition of karma and Sharma’s field study showed that individual Hindus have their own uses and interpretations of karma (Sharma, 360). Karma is interlinked with the caste system and the animal world as well; reprehensible actions in previous lives means an individual may be born in a lower caste or as an animal in his or her next life.

References

1. Yevtic, Paul. Karma and Reincarnation in Hindu Religion and Philosophy. Kessinger LLC, 2006. Print.

2. Tull, Herman Wayne. The Vedic Origins of Karma: Cosmos as Man in Ancient Indian Myth and Ritual. Albany: State University of New York, 1989. Print.

3. Sanyal, R. K. The Hindu Philosophy of Sin, Salvation & Karma. New Delhi: Crest Pub. House, 2001. Print.

4. Narayana, Prasad. Karma and Reincarnation: the Ved!ntic Perspective. New Delhi: D.K. Printworld, 1994. Print.

11

5. Babb, Lawrence A. "Destiny and Responsibility: Karma in Hinduism." Karma: an Anthropological Inquiry. By Charles F. Keyes and E. Valentine. Daniel. Berkeley: University of California, 1983. 163-82. Print

6. Potter, Karl H. "The Naturalistic Principle of Karma." Philosophy East and West 14.1 (1964): 39-49. JSTOR. Web. 18 Mar. 2011. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/1396753.pdf?acceptTC=true>.

7. Sharma, Ursula. "Theodicy and the Doctrine of Karma." Man 8.3 (1973): 347-64. JSTOR. Web. 18 Mar. 2011. <http://libweb08.knox.edu:2060/stable/pdfplus/2800314.pdf?acceptTC=true>.

12

Mary in Catholic Theology Chelsea Coventry Abstract The aim of this article is to present and clarify the understanding of and devotion to Mary within Catholic theology. In the Catholic faith, the Blessed Virgin Mary is venerated above all other saints and holy people, although she is not worshipped as a divine figure as Christ is. The basis of this veneration is her role as the Mother of God and as the vessel through which God became man. She is seen as the Ever-Virgin Mother of God, to whom the Church shows special devotion due to her unwavering trust in God. She is a model for the Church and all of its members to follow in their search for Christ. These conclusions are found in studies about the theology of Mary done by Switzer and Cross and within Apostolic Constitutions, the Ecumenical Review, the Catholic Encyclopedia, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Introduction Within the Roman Catholic tradition, the Blessed Virgin Mary is the earthly mother of Christ, who is fully man and fully God. From the moment of Mary’s conception, the Church considers her to have been free from sin. In his Ineffeabilis Deus, Pope Pius XI affirmed the “holy innocence and sanctity” of Mary from her conception, as she was the vessel through which God became man (Pius IX, Ineffeabilis Deus). The essence of perfection that is God could not come from anything marred by sin. And as her conception was deemed holy, so was her death. In 1950, Pope Pius XII proclaimed ex cathedra, that is, with divine authority, “that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory” (Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus). The doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption were proclaimed in relatively recent times, 1854 and 1950, but their origins are found in early Christian teachings. The story of her life was told in parallel with her son’s, who was also born without sin and who was resurrected from the dead into heaven (Switzer 2011). The beginning and ending of Mary’s life illustrate the special grace that God bestowed upon her both in her life on earth and her life in heaven. What is remembered most about the life of Mary is the birth of Jesus Christ, her son. In the Catechism, she is called Theotokos, meaning “Mother of God” (Catechism 495). Mary did not have foreknowledge of what was to be her great role in life. The gospels of Matthew and Luke give accounts of Mary as a virgin betrothed to Joseph at the time of Jesus’s conception (New American Bible, Matthew 1:18, Luke 1:27). The gospel of Luke describes how an angel of God came to her and told her that she would bear a son, Jesus, in spite of her virginity. This would be possible through the intercession of the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:28-35). Despite the incredible uncertainty of this situation, Mary trusted in God’s plan for her and responded, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word” (Luke 1:38). The Church holds that Christ was conceived only through the power of the Holy Spirit and asserts Mary’s perpetual virginity. The conception of Jesus within her womb and his natural birth reflect his full humanity while his conception by a virgin reflects his full divinity (Catechism 496-497). Mary, unaffected by sin, was to be a pure vessel for the incarnation of Christ. The Catholic Church also holds that Mary remained a virgin even after the birth of Christ and until the end of her life. Thus she is Aeiparthenos or “Ever-Virgin”. Mary’s perpetual virginity signifies her perpetual faith and devotion to God.

13

This is the same faith that gave her the strength to trust in God’s plan for her as mother of Christ (Catechism 499, 506-507). In giving birth to Christ and remaining faithful to God, Mary gave birth for all the world, as Christ became man to save all from sin. The Church today follows her life-giving influence (Mary, Mother of God--Virgin and Ever-Virgin 35). The belief in God’s favor of Mary drives the honor that Catholics show for her even now.

Within Catholicism there are different levels of devotion or veneration. Latria, meaning adoration, is worship, which is reserved for God alone within the conception and recognition of the trinity or God in three persons as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Secondary to and lower than latria is dulia. Dulia is veneration that is reserved for those whom God has honored and in whom God has made known some of his glory. Catholic saints fall under this sort of veneration. The highest sort of dulia is hyperdulia, which is reserved for Mary. She is honored above all the saints, but not worshipped as God is (Cross 1917, 14-15). Mary has a set of devotions attributed to her, the most common of which being the rosary. The rosary calls for the Catholic to reflect on the mysteries of the faith and events in faith history as common prayers are repeated in a certain order (Thurston and Shipman 1912). Mary is thus remembered in parallel with her son and is set up as a model for the faithful to follow in their lives. An understanding of the significance of Mary comes from the worship life of the believer, not typically from formal textbooks. An emulation of her life draws one closer to the life of her son. This is why the Church puts so much emphasis on Mary within Catholic devotion (Mary, Mother of God--Virgin and Ever-Virgin 36). Catholic faithful attempt to emulate Mary’s undying trust in God as they worship her son. Catholics see Mary as having been fully human, but as having special graces bestowed upon her by God so that she could be a proper vessel for Christ’s birth and be rewarded for her great faith. Worship is given to God alone, within his role as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Mary, however, is honored above all saints. A study and emulation of her life brings the faithful Catholic ever closer to the love of Christ, her son.

Works Cited Cross, George. "Rival Interpretations of Christianity: I. Catholicism." The Biblical World 49.1

(1917): 12-24. JSTOR. Web. 17 Mar. 2011.

“Mary, Mother of God – Virgin and Ever-Virgin (Parthenos and Aeiparthenos).”Ecumenical

Review 60.1/2 (2008): 35-52. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 19 Mar. 2011.

Pius IX. Apostolic Constitution. Ineffabilis Deus. 8 Dec. 1854. 17 Mar. 2011.

Pius XII. Apostolic Constitution. Munificentissimus Deus. 1 Nov. 1950. 17 Mar. 2011.

Switzer, John. "Where do we get the Marian dogmas?." U.S. Catholic 75.8 (2010): 46.

Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 20 Mar. 2011.

The New American Bible. World Catholic Press, 1991.

14

Thurston, Herbert, and Andrew Shipman. "The Rosary." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol.

13. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. 18 Mar. 201

15

Rejoicing in Tribulation: The Christian View of Suffering Kyle Cruz Abstract: I once saw a t-shirt with the words, “Christians: Bring on the Pain!” printed on its back. I laughed after reading this, not because I disagreed with the statement, but because so much irony was bottled up in that one, short statement. In other words, the line conveyed both truths and also misleading conclusions about the Christian faith. The truth is that the divinely inspired writers of the Bible constantly remind Christians to expect suffering and implore them to willingly endure it. The misconception is that we do this because it is somehow fulfilling to experience pain for pain’s sake. In this article, I will attempt to deconstruct this myth by demonstrating that Christians can express outright anathema toward pain as evidenced in the story of Job; however, should seasons of suffering befall them, Christians are commanded to rejoice knowing that God uses suffering to teach them how to pursue and experience, in greater depth, the immeasurable joy He offers. John Piper in Desiring God and C.S. Lewis, in his seminal work on suffering, The Problem of Pain, agree on this point. Both claim that God ordains suffering as a necessary part of human experience; without it, we would forget to begin and end our pursuit of joy in God. Ultimately, Christians say that it is a privilege to suffer because by trusting and obeying God – in spite of any suffering this may entail – we are securing for ourselves the deepest joy to be had. Introduction: Christians experience suffering the same way other people do. We occasionally sprain our ankle, temporarily lose confidence when we are slighted or feel like life is spinning out of control for no tangible reasons. However, we are commanded to consider all sufferings “an opportunity for great joy” because they are “light and momentary” (2 Corinthians 4:17). Although multifaceted, the idea of suffering, from a Christian viewpoint, can be divided into two categories: (1) natural suffering and (2) artificial suffering. Natural suffering, as portrayed by the story of Job in the Bible, refers to events that cause seemingly indirect strife, or as Lewis puts it, “suffering which cannot thus be traced to ourselves.”1 Earthquakes, tsunamis, complications that lead to miscarriage or political turmoil are forms of natural suffering because they can happen to anyone, not just Christians. Artificial suffering, conversely, points specifically to persecution for believing in the faith. Like other groups, from communists during the heights of the Red Scare to Buddhist monks in Lhasa, Tibet, Christians understand what it means to be marginalized, demonized and even murdered for adhering to their beliefs. However, what may be unique about the Christian understanding of suffering is its intended goal; while other groups may endure persecution to further an ideology or preserve political autonomy, multiple writers in the Bible invite Christians to view persecution as a necessary condition for pursuing joy. As New Testament writer Paul asserts, “we can rejoice, too, when we run into problems and trials, for we know that they help us develop endurance. And endurance develops strength of character, and character strengthens our confident hope for salvation” (Romans 5:3-4). In other words, it is through the furnace of suffering, natural or artificial, that a Christian grows in his or her satisfaction, hope and joy in God. Jesus Christ said, “If you try to hang on to your life, you will lose it. But if you give up your life for my sake, you will save it” (Matthew 16:25).

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 C.S. Lewis, “The Problem of Pain,” in The Complete C.S. Lewis Signature Collection, C.S. Lewis (New York: HarperCollins

Publishers, 2002), 405.

16

Natural Suffering The story of Job in the Bible exemplifies how God uses natural suffering to lead

people into a deeper understanding of the satisfaction He gives. Job, as the story goes, was a prosperous man. He possessed countless heads of livestock, numerous servants at his beck and call, land that stretched as far as the eye could see, good health, and seven sons and three beautiful daughters. God proclaimed that Job was “the finest man in all the earth. He is blameless – a man of complete integrity. He fears God and stays away from evil” (Job 1:8). One day, God allowed Satan to take away all of Job’s blessings, confident that Job would still profess God as Lord over his life. As a result, raiders killed Job’s children, thieves snatched away his livestock and vicious boils ravaged his skin and prevented him from sleeping. Despite the calamities that befell him, Job persevered in his faith but only after realizing that the blessings in his life had caused him to forget to begin and end his joy in God.

The first lesson we can learn from Job’s story is that Christians should not pursue pain for the sake of it. After God allowed Job to lose everything, rather than embracing the pain, he actually wished that his life could go back to the way it used to be:

I long for the years gone by when God took care of me, when he lighted the way before me and I walked safely through the darkness. In my early years, the friendship of God was felt in my home. The Almighty was still with me, and my children were around me. In those days my cows produced milk in abundance, and my olive groves poured out streams of olive oil (Job 29:2-6).

In Chapters 30 and 31, Job even insinuated that God was unfairly inflicting pain on him by insisting on his innocence:

Have I lied to anyone or deceived anyone? Let God judge me on the scales of justice for he knows my integrity. If I have strayed from his pathway, or I my heart has lusted for what my eyes have seen, or if I am guilt of any other sin, then let someone else harvest the crops I have planted, and let all that I have planted be uprooted (Job 31:5-8).

Job’s reaction to his circumstances was natural; we could even say that he had a right to question God. After all, he was, in God’s eyes, righteous and without blame. Despite his suffering and reservations about God’s providence, Job still proclaimed, “The Lord gave me everything I had, and the Lord has taken it away. Praise the name of the Lord!” (Job 1:21). Even though Job accepted the sovereignty of God over his suffering, he did not voluntarily choose it; on the contrary, he spurned it.

The second lesson we can learn from Job’s story is that a person’s suffering is not necessarily an indication of God’s anger at his or her sin. After Job’s body succumbed to boils, his wife implored him to confess whatever sin she thought he was hiding so that God would remove his punishment: “Are you still trying to maintain your integrity?” (Job 2:9). Similarly, Job’s three wisest friends – Bildad, Zophar and Elihu – tried to convince Job that he was suffering as a result of unconfessed sin. According to Zophar, calamity “is the fate that awaits the wicked. It is the inheritance decreed by God” (Job 20:29). Job, however, denied their accusations and insisted on his innocence by saying, “Should we accept only good things from the hand of God and never anything bad” (Job 2:10). Job said this because he knew that his suffering was not borne out of any blemish in his character, but rather a product of God’s testing. In the end, God restored not just Job’s wealth, but also his

17

reputation by telling Job’s friends, “I am angry with you…for you have not been right in what you said about me, as my servant Job was” (Job 42:7). In other words, Job knew from the start that God was ultimately the one who had sent calamity into his life. Although he felt undeserving of such a fate, he was clinging on to the hope that God had a good reason for allowing him to suffer.

God’s ultimate purpose in allowing Job to suffer was to show him that in his prosperity, he had forgotten to begin and end his satisfaction in God. Job realized that although he had lived a righteous life comparative to others, he had made the mistake of basing his contentment on the amount of his earthly blessings, instead of on the unshakeable fact that God was sovereign over every circumstance. After God chastises Job for this weakness in faith with the question, “Who is this that questions my wisdom with such ignorant words?” (Job 38:2), Job replies, “I had heard about you before, but now I have seen you with my own eyes. I take back everything I said, and I sit in dust and ashes to show my repentance” (Job 42: 5-6).

Job’s predicament was not unique. Even today, many people who profess themselves to be adherents of the Christian faith, live lives that do not display how much more precious God is to them than the next purchase to add to their material inventory. In view of this, arguably, innate human proclivity – some would call it greed – to crave and hang onto finite blessings, even loved ones, Lewis claims:

God, who made these deserving people, may really be right when He thinks that their modest prosperity and the happiness of their children are not enough to make them blessed: that all this must fall from them in the end…And therefore He troubles them, warning them in advance of an insufficiency that one day they will have to discover. The life to themselves and their families stand between them and the recognition of their need. He makes that life less sweet to them. 2

Had God spared Job from the despair and sorrow he experienced, Job would never have learnt the meaning of depending entirely on God for his satisfaction. That is to say, Job finally learned that to true joy cannot be extricated from total self-abandon to God. Artificial Suffering

Along with natural suffering, God also uses artificial suffering to increase our enjoyment of Him. The New Testament writer the apostle Paul knew what it meant to suffer the hatred and betrayal of people for believing in, and spreading the Christian faith. Artificial suffering, in these terms, is synonymous to persecution as the “intentional hostility from someone because we are known to be Christians.” 3 Initially, Paul actually persecuted Christians as a member of the Jewish religious elite. After he was converted, however, Paul became one of the most active defenders and promoters of the Christian faith especially among non-Jewish people groups such as the Greeks and Romans. However, Paul’s evangelism came at a high price. In his letter to the church in Corinth Paul says, “I have been…put in jail more often…five different times the Jews gave me thirty-nine lashes. Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned” (2 Corinthians 11:24-25). For Paul, physical pain was only the surface of his trials; perhaps, for him, “the hardest of all

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!2 Lewis, The Problem of Pain,” in The Complete C.S. Lewis Signature Collection, C.S. Lewis, 408. 3 John Piper, Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist (Colorado Springs: Multnomah Books, 2003), 256.

18

sufferings” was the type that “eats into the spirit” – that is, “which is not deserved at all…which innocent persons are called to endure because of their innocence, when they are slandered and oppressed and persecuted, not for evil-doing, but for well-doing.”4 In other words, Paul’s suffering affected every aspect of his life – physical, mental, spiritual and emotional.

Despite the severity of the persecution Paul suffered, he still claimed that his work was always full of joy. In his letter to the church in Colossae, Paul says, “I am glad when I suffer for you in my body.” Moreover, in Romans 5:3-4 Paul invites other Christians to assume a joyful and content demeanor when experiencing persecution:

We can rejoice, too, when we run into problems and trials for we know that they are good for us – they help us learn to endure. And endurance develops strength of character in us, and character strengthens our confident expectation of salvation. And this expectation [“hope” in other translations] will not disappoint us. For we know how dearly God loves us…

In other words, Paul believed that Christians should gladly practice and share their faith even if this entails persecution, because the perseverance of such faith refines and affirms hope in God’s love and promise of eternal salvation. This faith in God’s providence and ultimate sovereignty, is important because Paul stressed that human-inflicted suffering would come to all those who believed: “For you have been given not only the privilege of trusting in Christ but also the privilege of suffering for Him” (Philippians 1:29). The only reason why Paul would consider suffering a privilege is if he knew that it was designed by God to draw us toward Him. Like Paul, theologian John Piper believes that persecution in the Christian faith can only be endured joyfully if it is viewed as an opportunity to end our preoccupation with our own strength and depend entirely on God’s goodness. According to Piper, “suffering necessarily comes along to us as we are walking with Him by faith in the sense that it is endured in the strength He supplies.”5 In prosperity, it is easy to forget that dependence on God is the source of joy that does not oscillate according to circumstance.

Paul, like Job, thus understood that pain should not only be pursued for its own but also that suffering works actually in favor of Christians. In 2 Corinthians 12:8, Paul begs God to take away his physical suffering. That Paul would even ask God to remove his sufferings suggests that he understood that God was sovereign over all his troubles and was the one who had allowed them to trouble him: “Three different times, I begged the Lord to take it away.” Now, why would God permit affliction to befall Paul deliberately if he could have removed it at any moment? God himself answers Paul by telling him, “My gracious favor is all you need. My power works best in your weakness,” to which Paul replies, “So now I am glad to boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may work through me. Since I know it is all for Christ’s good, I am quite content with my weaknesses and with insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong” (2 Corinthians 12:8-10). In other words, God used Paul’s poverty of strength and natural weaknesses to build his dependence on Him. Without this thorn of the flesh, Paul would not have had the occasion to test and prove his undivided “allegiance to His [God] goodness and power…in the sense that it reveals His worth as an all sufficient compensation and prize.”6

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!4 Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Spurgeon’s Sermons on the Cross of Christ (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1993), 123. 5 Piper, Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist, 257. 6 Piper, Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist, 257.

19

Free will has everything to do with the pursuit of joy amidst suffering. When suffering – natural or artificial – strikes, it is easy for a Christian to doubt the continuing providence of God and fall away. Job did this at times and Paul was certainly tempted on many occasions to do so as well. However, a Christian who has learned to cast aside the importance of earthly concerns can take heart knowing that God is more than an apt compensation for any suffering that comes their way. As Piper puts it, “Every triumph of faith and all perseverance in obedience are testimonies to the goodness of God and the preciousness of Christ – whether the enemy is sickness, Satan, sin, or sabotage.”7 As such, because it is the glory and honor of God, which is at stake, a Christian can be ready “for every particular renunciation that may be demanded”8 and remain joyful in spite of it.

Concluding Thoughts: Suffering remains a controversial and sensitive topic for most people. Christians, certainly, are not the first to ascribe meaning and purpose to it; Buddhists, Hindus and ascetics, no less, also embrace pain as a necessary component in the journey toward, or pursuit of, supreme satisfaction. In other words, it is not a stretch of truth to say that we all understand the idea that to obtain the best, and perhaps the most enjoyable thing, there must be a firm and painful renunciation of dependence upon lesser things, even cosmetically good ones – i.e. worldly comfort. Pain, at least in God’s hands, is thus the means by which He shows us that “our happiness lies in Him. Yet we will not seek it in Him as long as He leaves us any other resort where it can even plausibly be looked for.”9 In this sense, it is misleading to think of God as a sadist in allowing individuals, even upright ones like Job and Paul, to suffer as much as they did. If God is to help us along the path of freely choosing His infinite joy over other avenues of pleasure, then it makes perfect sense why He, in His grace and wisdom, makes our own life “less agreeable to us” by taking “away the plausible source of false happiness.” 10 In other words, “The creature’s illusion of self-sufficiency must, for the creature’s sake, be shattered…by trouble or fear of trouble.”11 Albeit, I am in total agreement with Lewis when he says, “Pain as God’s megaphone is a terrible instrument,” but it is perhaps the only means to remove “the veil,”12 which blinds us from our insufficiency. In this way, God ordains suffering because its ability to humble us brings us to a place where we can freely choose whether to continue pursuing our satisfaction in material and finite things, or in God Himself, even though we may end up choosing the former option. In any case, suffering is not the only teacher God uses to bring us closer to His side; as anyone can testify, life sees both good times and bad. God only wishes that when He “refreshes us on the journey with some pleasant inns” – i.e. “a few moments of happy love, a landscape, a symphony, a merry meeting with our friends, a bathe or football (soccer) match” – we will not be encouraged “to mistake them for home.”13

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!7 Piper, Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist, 257. 8 Lewis, The Problem of Pain,” in The Complete C.S. Lewis Signature Collection, C.S. Lewis, 414. 9 Lewis, The Problem of Pain,” in The Complete C.S. Lewis Signature Collection, C.S. Lewis, 408. 10 Lewis, The Problem of Pain,” in The Complete C.S. Lewis Signature Collection, C.S. Lewis, 408. 11 Lewis, The Problem of Pain,” in The Complete C.S. Lewis Signature Collection, C.S. Lewis, 408. 12 Lewis, The Problem of Pain,” in The Complete C.S. Lewis Signature Collection, C.S. Lewis, 407. 13 Lewis, The Problem of Pain,” in The Complete C.S. Lewis Signature Collection, C.S. Lewis, 415.

20

Bibliography

Books

Lewis, C.S. The Complete C.S. Lewis Signature Classics. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2002.

Piper, John. Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist. Colorado Springs: Multnomah Books, 2003.

Spurgeon, Charles Haddon. Spurgeon’s Sermons on the Cross of Christ. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1993.

21

Nietzsche Was Right, Elitist Views Aside1 Benjamin Greuter

In Nietzsche’s On the Advantage and Disadvantage of History for Life, there exists a major contemporary controversy. Nietzsche, somewhat renowned for his elitist views and his tendency to go on at length about the masses and their inability to be as great or noble as the few and the proud, presents nevertheless an intensely insightful and progressive view on human progression and society. The point I will make here is that the insight and wisdom presented in Nietzsche’s work remains untarnished by the elitist language, in that Nietzsche himself makes such (elitist) attitudes logically impossible to maintain given his account of human history and society. The demystification of the value of Nietzsche's work should allow for a wider range of interest in and appreciation for his works as valued philosophies and comprehensive of humanity. I will do this by removing the specific quality (elitism) in his work so many are averse to, to allow the wisdom and insight found within to more strongly radiate undiminished.

In On the Advantage and Disadvantage of History for Life, Friedrich Nietzsche explains the distinction between what it takes to produce valuable (or artistic2) work, and work of no (artistic) value.3 This distinction seems to center on the differences between subjective and objective work. After explaining the impossibility of complete “objectivity” through his famous example, a painting which is done objectively is one which is not but the reproduction of empirical essences of the things which the picture depict, a bad mythology, Nietzsche forwards through a quote from Grillparzer that history cannot be done objectively, since what is called objective history still necessitates associating and connecting varying single events or actions to others in order that an unintelligible list of events and empirical facts make some sort of narrative or intelligible history. 4 History which does not do this but just lists or reproduces various empirical facts unintelligibly, or in other words is not artistic, is of no value or use to us. Those who attempt historical work/interpretation objectively, then, fail at making something useful, while the subjective historians (or artists) put value on what otherwise is useless.

Given this distinction, we find, elsewhere in section six, a dilemma; while on the one hand, Nietzsche says that artists or historians which can be trusted or viewed most valuably are of the rarest sort, having capabilities no one else could manifest given their lack of such noble qualities5 and experiences which the rare valued historian holds, on the other hand he states, “but you will always notice the quality of mind of such writing when it is required to

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 This article was originally submitted for the Senior Philosophy Seminar in Winter 2011. It has been reformatted to fit the parameters of the scholarly journal. 2 Notice the grammatical formation of the following sentence from Nietzsche’s sixth section of On the Advantage and Disadvantage of History for Life: “No one can be a great historian, an artistic man and a shallowpate at the same time…” A comma follows historian and does not separate artistic man from shallowpate. The implications therein are such that artistic man is used to explicate the term historian. Hence, they become interchangeable concepts in Nietzsche’s context. 3 “Only from the standpoint of the highest strength of the present may you interpret the past: only in the highest exertion of your noblest qualities will you discern what is worthy of being known and preserved, what is great in the past. Like by like! Otherwise you will draw the past down to yourselves. Do not believe any historical writing if it does not issue from the rarest of minds; but you will always notice the quality of mind of such writing when it is required to assert something general or to repeat something generally known: the genuine historian must have the strength to recast the well known into something never heard before and to proclaim the general so simply and profoundly that one overlooks its simplicity because of its profundity and its profundity because of its simplicity. No one can be a great historian, an artistic man and a shallowpate at the same time…” –Nietzsche; On the Advantage and Disadvantage of History for Life; Section 6, p.37. 4 P.34-36, Section 6, On the Advantage and Disadvantage of History for Life, Nietzsche. 5Here, the noble qualities being referred to are the qualities which Nietzsche discusses in the later sections of the work when describing the characteristics which belong to the super-historian, or that individual who can transcend circumstances in that he can make history a tool for his own moral progression, i.e. capacity to manipulate it, destroy it, or create it to achieve a higher ethic or moral understanding.

22

assert something general or to repeat something generally known.”6 The rarest minds will be recognized, then, when they are speaking the most profound simplicities, or generally understood truths. Hence, two issues (with suggested resolution): the first is that cultures are full of platitudes and generalities which hold simple profundity; however people cannot find themselves or sort themselves out through generalities: he who hesitates is lost, but by all means look before you leap! If the early bird gets the worm, how am I to avoid hurrying through life, since otherwise I’ll miss it? These generalities, simple in their profundity and profound in their simplicity, do not provide valuable or practical wisdom or truth. We may enjoy their poetic characteristics and simple irony, but we do not find ourselves in such generalities. It is this poetic beauty, I think, which Nietzsche emphasizes as the source of value. However, if the implications of this are traced, we find ourselves concluding with Nietzsche in section seven7 that we are not achieving a higher set of moral standards by breaking the current set, only one we find prettier, or more beautiful.

The second issue we find here is in this supposed recognition; if all of us valueless history makers are to recognize the truth in such genius works don’t we in some way already understand those truths or that profundity? And does not Nietzsche himself say that in order to understand the elegance or nobility of a work or experience one must have noble quality within their character? He does, in the same paragraph, actually: “only in the highest exertion of your noblest qualities will you discern what is worthy of being known and preserved, what is great in the past. Like by like!”8 So at once, we’re told that only the rarest and noblest of people can understand the rarest and noblest of qualities in experience, as well as that everyone will recognize these most profound generalities! I suppose we are to accept that the late bird can also get that early worm. Well, I suggest a similar resolution.

Back to this subjectivity that we learned early on is so key to creating valuable work: if we were to believe that only far and few between of those among us can engineer valuable works of history or art, then we are furthermore to believe that not only some of us, but most of us are unable to invest ourselves in our experiences, reflecting on them and associating them in ways intimate to our own minds; describing or communicating our experiences via words, texts, paintings, or some other sort of artistic outlet subjectively would be a rarity among humanity, only the few and far between monumental individuals could create an intelligible narrative to otherwise (not necessarily) associated unintelligible experiences. The folly therein lies; we all have this ability, as we all share the innate characteristics of humanity, which set us apart from the animal world of living.9 There exists a way you can express to me that, for instance, chains make you feel weary and disgusted, given your enslaved heritage, or perhaps a touching movie you’ve recently seen that will make me understand satisfactorily10 what you mean in some sort of empathic way, regardless of the fact that I do not share your experience with the heritage or having seen the film.

Does this explain, then, everything? Can we simply accept Nietzsche’s work with this clarification without tripping over any other dilemmas? Ideally. However, one might ask, ‘well, what then do we do about the fact that monumental events as Nietzsche describes them still occur rarely as they characteristically would given that they are monumental? Here,

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!6 P.37, Section 6, On the Advantage and Disadvantage of History for Life, Nietzsche. 7 Section seven begins by highlighting the necessity of destroying the current system of thought or illusive atmosphere and their implications of life which that illusion alone maintains. In other words, breaking the current set of moral standards to achieve a higher moral standard. 8 P.37, Section 6, On the Advantage and Disadvantage of History for Life, Nietzsche. 9 See Section 1, in which Nietzsche’s offers a short discourse on the difference between animal experience and human experience. 10 satisfactorily here simply indicates that there is a level of understanding high enough that I could recount a satisfactory-to-you description of your feelings about the chains.

23

we can once again adhere to Nietzsche’s discourse, but in light of our new presupposition. Three primary aspects, Nietzsche seems to agree, affect the realization of monumental history-makers or artists throughout history: artistic observation/linguistic capabilities, cultural framework, and individual inclination.

Nietzsche’s discussion of artistic observation suggests, again, that subjectivity, or the investment of one’s self in his or her experiences or works, is the difference between something being artistic and something being that mythical reproduction of empirical essences. So the first influence on the rise of the monumental individual is the subjectivity with which he or she interprets his or her experiences and thus the subjectivity with which his or her interpretations are communicated. Nietzsche exemplifies this with the painter and his impossibly objective painting of a stormy landscape. Furthermore, while a painter is only as good (at making valuable art) as his vocabulary of colors and techniques, the rest of us are only as artistic as our language affords. Say, for instance you see a pen. “It’s a black-ink pen, its sides are clear, its tip is sharp, and its grip is black, along with the ink-holder, indicating it’s a black-ink pen.” Then, I see the same pen from a similar angle. “Light and airy,/ the graceful design/ allows not but ink/ to touch/ the savage woodland/ paper so as to avoid tainting/ the crystalline exterior/ of the pen, pure and insightful.” You, upon hearing this description begin to gain the capability to view the same exact pen differently than you had prior.

Similarly, a mathematical proof: one glance and I see numbers, letters, and symbols of all sorts lineated to some specific purpose. A moment after you describe to me the meaning of the symbols, the implications of the lineation, I then see beauty and profound simplicity within the proof, and am awed by the same experience which had bored me only moments before. So artistic observation, as Nietzsche expresses, is not only derived from the level of one’s subjectivity, but from one’s access to language, as Nietzsche’s first section implies. In the simple fact that anyone can learn expansions of vocabulary, new words, phrases, and meanings for words and phrases, we find more proof that anyone can achieve such artistic prowess or, at least, potential.

The second influence over the realization of this potential is cultural framework. Cultural framework includes but is not limited to the following: religious beliefs, governmental legislation and core values, societal values and trends, familial values and beliefs, and even level of relative wealth and nobility to fellow society members. Now, at some length, Nietzsche discusses religion and its influences on the artistic process. He delves into, specifically, religious implications relative to the true historian/history-maker (artist). After one most questionable statement about how those most pure adherents to Christianity “always questioned and impeded rather than promoted its worldly success,” he explains that such people often remain “quite unknown and unnamed by history.” 11 Now the monumentalism of such artistic and valuable men is impeded, for history does not recognize it for the sheer, simple fact that history is, as I discuss later, “honored above life.”12 More explicitly, a man who challenges history is similar to a man who challenges the church. For instance, say a catholic priest decides that one of the catholic laws is especially unjust to his parishioners. He, over the jurisdiction he’s given, plans to abolish said law. He is hence removed from his position of authority and replaced by a more subservient priest. This rebellious priest was able to overcome the tenacious system in which he worked to achieve a higher sense of justice, and all those who heard his story would be shown the light of his

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11P.56, Section 9, On the advantage and Disadvantage of History for Life, Nietzsche. 12 P.41, Section 7, On the Advantage and Disadvantage of History for Life, Nietzsche.

24

insight. However, the church will not reward this because the church’s system, its law and hierarchy is honored above the value of this specific priest’s insight, just as one man of action, one unhistorical man capable of transcending his culture’s historical beliefs to achieve a superhistorical belief or realization of justice is not rewarded by the society or culture in which he lives, because that society or culture honors the hierarchy of history above life. Furthermore than simple cases in which one takes up this unhistorical—superhistorical attitude and are forgotten or shunned, individuals may often avoid or sidestep such shunning or assault on their societal influence by not pursuing that realization, that belief or wisdom. Such is the case with the following example.

We can imagine a man of never-before-seen knowledge or wisdom concerning a specific aspect of history or a universal human experience, but who keeps to himself and, rather than communicating that insight or understanding to anyone, holds it in, unwilling, for whatever reason, to share it. Whereby does one develop such an inclination? Selfishness? Fear? Religious belief? And this brings us to our third and final influencing factor.

Personal inclination is the deepest of factors pulling or pushing our potentialities. While all may have the ability to create artistic masterpieces, or build unimaginably insightful histories, a limit is placed on the realization; those who desire, nay, who strive to. Those with passion enough, Nietzsche suggests, realize their potential. “…No artist will paint his picture, no general achieve victory nor people its freedom without first having desired and striven for it in such an unhistorical condition.” 13 It is this capability of humans to decidedly act unhistorical that allows us to accomplish the otherwise unhistorical, or, never-before-achieved. This condition, as Nietzsche explains, is an unjust one, especially towards the past; a man in such a state, a man of action, Nietzsche borrows from Goethe, is without conscience. Furthermore, it’s necessary to reemphasize that accomplishing the monumental is breaking the current moral standards or codes to achieve a higher moral code. (Given the above discussion of cultural influences, we can see just how deeply our inclination may be affected here by the society around us.) The fact that a moral code must be broken necessitates the concept of striving, and its association to monumental achievement. An accepted belief such as a moral code, must be struggled against, must be overcome and thrown aside in order that one might see or create the higher, more beautiful, and perhaps more universally sound standard.

This requires a certain anarchic chaos, a sort of madness.14 After Nietzsche quotes the third act of Wagner’s Die Meistersinger von Nürnburg, he follows up with “But every people, even every man, who wants to become ripe needs such an enveloping madness, such a protective and veiling cloud; now, however, we hate ripening as such because history is honored above life.”15 Such determination requires a level of commitment rarely found among the populous. Why is it so rare? Inclination. As we’ve discussed, culture, society, and religious frameworks are at work making this required determination more or less desirable, more or less difficult to come by. Regardless how deeply we study societal influence, there will always exist that unknown variable (individuality) which differs not only between each and every individual but also between one moment and any other. It is a not a difference in capability, but in action/decision.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!13 The condition referred to is found a few lines above in the section: “think of a man tossed and torn by a powerful passion for a woman or a great thought: how his world is changed! Glancing backwards he feels blind, listening sideways he hears what is foreign as a dull meaningless sound; what he perceives at all he has never perceived so before, so tangibly near, so coloured, full of sound and light as though he were apprehending it with all his senses at once.” Section 1, p.11, On the Advantage and Disadvantage of History for Life, Nietzsche. 14 This capacity would be one of the “noble” characteristics. Mentioned above. 15 P.41, Section 7, On the Advantage and Disadvantage of History for Life, Nietzsche.

25

Obviously, if the vast majority does not achieve such greatness within its individual arts or works we can see just how influential our contemporary conventions are. The extent to which history, organization, governmentalization, legislation, and association are so heavily relied upon in the forming of our lifestyles and attitudes is startling, maybe unnerving. Why is this so? Well, as Nietzsche suggests, we need that organization, that moral codification, because if we do not form such a governing thing upon which to rely and to which to adhere, what a chaotic free-for-all our collective life-choices would be. An even more startling thought, really. Idealists would say we would be fine; we would all make similar life choices and history would just be ripe with the best decisions for everyone. While this may be true, we recognize the chance we take because we recognize the unknown variable that is individualism, personal inclination, that aspect of human life which each and every person has no access to beyond that inclination which is their own. So we make ourselves feel safer, more secure in light of this unknown, by developing and investing in an illusion: an illusion that government, legislation, organized society, convention, and association really do control that variable we see in each face we pass in the sub-way station, and in each handshake with a friend, co-worker, or stranger: that individual inclination which cannot be foreseen or predicted. That illusion has influence because we invest in it, because we act as monumentalists or antiquarians; its power is only as strong as we believe it is. The superhistorical, then, are in every way unrestrained by its chains. They are free to explore existence and humanity beyond the walls of justice, morality, or history.

Regardless, the rarity of such individuals, those with the noblest qualities that radiate in their works, cannot be associated to the idea that only very few people have those qualities to begin with. Given our discussion of the various influences on the realization of such noble work, assuming such a truth would leave us without the ability to believe that, from the confines of today’s historical views within our culture, even a single superhistorian would rise from within the people even over a span of a thousand years. The concept A) very few people actually have noble-enough qualities to achieve such noble works given that B) the noblest of works would be recognized by all who view them due to their simple profundity and their profound simplicity, i.e., their level of nobility, can only be rescued through the declination of A. Everyone holds the potential to expand their vocabulary, invest more deeply in the subjectivity of their experiences, and to transcend contemporary moral codes or justices to achieve higher, more beautiful moralities and justices.

Works Cited

Nietzsche, Friedrich. On the Advantage and Disadvantage of History for Life. Tr. Preus, Peter. Indianapolis, Indiana. Hackett Publishing Company, INC. 1980.

26

About the Authors

Chelsea Coventry is a junior who, prior to college, attended 13 years of Catholic school education. She is double majoring in Music and Philosophy. She plays the cello in the Knox String Ensemble and Cello Choir. In addition, she is the President of Newman Club and the Vice President of Ritual for Sigma Alpha Iota.

Kyle Cruz is a second-year planning to major in Integrated International Studies and is still undecided whether he will minor in Journalism, Religious Studies, History or French. He is a regular contributor to The Knox Student’s World Politics Corner and has been influenced much by the writings of C.S. Lewis. Kyle comes from the Philippines but has spent the majority of his life growing up in Cambodia and Laos. He plants to spend the 2011-2012 school year pursuing Peace & Conflict Studies at Haifa University International School in Haifa, Israel.

Benjamin Greuter is a junior at Knox College and currently calls the coasts of South Florida home. He's a Philosophy/Creative Writing double major, and is president of the Knox College Philosphy Club and a Small Group leader and Men's Group Head Correspondent for Intervarsity Christian Fellowship at Knox. Currently employed at the Knox County YMCA, he still finds (makes) time for both his thesis on the definition and use of "Creativity" in philosophy, as well as his poetry manuscripts. Having been raised in rural Indiana and now living with his sister, brother-in-law, and lovely nieces on the east coast, he has more sources of inspiration for his writings than he could have asked.

Tanvi Madhusudanan is a sophomore who is a double major in Psychology and International Relations. She is a follower of the Hindu faith and is on her quest for nirvana. She grew up in California and went to high school in India. In the future, Tanvi sees herself working in a foreign think tank.

Yumna Rathore is a junior at Knox College currently living in Virginia, USA. Apart from the United States, she has lived in Indonesia, Syria, England and France. She is a double major in International Relations and Economics. She is the Vice-President of Theology Journal and Islamic Club, junior representative for I-Club and Public Relations officer of Aaina-the South Asian Club. She is an activist for women's rights in Pakistan and wishes to enter the education sector, providing educational facilities and job opportunities to young women in villages of Pakistan.

27

Other Contributors

Hali Engelman is a junior at Knox College from Salt Lake City, Utah. She is a Music and Computer Science major, president of the International Club, and an employee of the Knox College radio station. She has a passion for theological debate of all sorts and is excited to be involved in this journal.

Supriya Kasaju hails from the land of Mt. Everest. She is a junior at Knox College. She is a Hindu- Buddhist who has lived in Thailand, Pakistan, and Nepal. She is the photographer, designer, and public relations officer for the Theology Journal. In the future, Supriya hopes to work in an international non-governmental organization (INGO).

Andrei Papancea is freshman at Knox College. He plans to double major in Computer Science and Economics. He is interested in web development and is currently working on several projects, including the Theology Journal website. He hopes to enter the business world after his undergraduate studies.

Kevin Wirasamban is a sophomore at an unknown college (which ever could it be?) who is currently waltzing a double concerto IIS-Spanish scale major operetta. He has lived in Thailand, Hungary, America, Qatar, and Oman before moving back to America. This man is a Virgo and works as a writing tutor for the CTL center.