RELIGIORELIGIORELIGIO An Undergraduate Journal of Christian Thought at Duke

November 2008 Volume 2, Issue 2

Calling graduating seniors and young alumni eager to explore living out your calling as a Christian…

Fellows live in the PathWays House (1115 W. Chapel Hill St.) while working in ministry and non-profit organizations and exploring faith and vocation in Christian community. Fellows receive a stipend, hous-ing, meals, courses, and travel together on retreats and mission trips.

For more information contact PathWays Director Keith Daniel, kd1@duke.edu or phone 919-668-0476.

Application for 2009 PathWays Summer Internships will be available in November, visit our website at

www.chapel.duke.edu/pathways

Applications are now being accepted for the 2009 – 2010

Duke Chapel PathWays Lilly Fellowship

Applications are now being accepted for the 2009 – 2010

Duke Chapel PathWays Lilly Fellowship

FEATURE: Art as a Public Expression of Faith during the Reign of Philip III: Dr. Sarah Schroth, Nancy Hanks Senior Curator of Art at the Nasher, discusses the exhibi-tion El Greco to Velazque and the relationship among faith, art and politics in Seventeenth Century Spain p. 16

Christianity in the Public Square:

November 2008 Volume 2, Issue 2 RELIGIORELIGIORELIGIO

ALSO INSIDE:

The Ancient Politics of Christ Gregory Morrison p. 4 A Summoning of Higher Truth: The Faith of Barack Obama Will Passo p. 8 A Christian Vote for John McCain Grant Meeker p. 10 Yours Are the Feet: Practical Faith through DukeEngage Rachel Revelle p. 12 Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Struggle of Public Christianity Justin Noia p. 14 Engaging the World: Law and Christian Faith Isaac Linnartz p. 22 For More than this Life: Love and Christian Service Dinh Xuan T. Phan p. 24 Not About Me: Being a Christian in the World of Business Bayard Friedman p. 26

Where I Worship: Personal Accounts from Members of the Duke Community p. 20 Can a Good Christian Be a Good President? A Discussion on Campus p. 28

Editors Nate Jones and Gregory Morrison Business Manager Andy Crewson Publication Manager Katie Daniel

Copy Editor Sarah Howell Advertising and Circulation Christina Booth

Internet Editor Nick Alexander Staff Sponsor Craig Kocher

Religio is an Independent Publication recognized by the Duke University Undergraduate Publications Board.

Material in this journal is either original, published with permission or used pursuant to the fair use doctrine. The use of any copyrighted material pursuant to the fair use doctrine or otherwise is not intended to represent the views or opinions of the original producer of the work. Additionally, no

work or image published herein may be copied or reproduced without the express written consent of the journal. Photos of works from the El Greco to Valezquez Exhibit at the Nasher Museum of Art are courtesy of the museum. 2

Note from the Editors We are pleased to present to you the Fall 2008 issue of Religio—Duke’s first undergraduate jour-

nal of Christian thought. Our purpose is to provide Duke students, faculty and staff a venue to read and write about the Christian faith. This university was founded on the premise that knowledge and relig-ion, eruditio et religio, are fundamental to the development and formation of all persons. Thus, it is our mission once again to bring Christianity into dialogue with the learning of this university. This project is ecumenical in its nature, and we draw upon people from a diverse range of Christian traditions and fellowships on campus. This journal is part of a larger initiative called “The Augustine Project.” This project was begun by Jordan Hylden, a Harvard alum and current Duke Divinity student, and seeks to establish journals of Christian thought at college and university campuses across the nation.

The theme of this issue is “Christianity and the Public Sphere.” In modern society, religious con-victions are often thought to be private affairs of individuals. But, we believe that the fullest expression of religious conviction is one that extends beyond the realm of the private and individual and enters the public and communal. How to do so, however, is a hotly-contested and often controversial issue, and we make no claims to any single form of public religious expression. We do wish, however, to see Christians make faithful and thoughtful decisions about what it might mean to express religious conviction in ar-eas such as politics, art, law, philanthropy and business.

It is our privilege to share with you an interview with Dr. Sarah Schroth, the Nancy Hanks Sen-ior Curator at the Nasher Museum of Art, who put together the beautiful exhibit “El Greco to Velázquez: Art during the Reign of Philip III” which will be at the Nasher until November 9. We would also like to thank the Nasher Museum of Art for providing us images of works in the exhibit. In the interview we discuss the relationship between Christianity, art and the Spanish seventeenth century state.

This topic is especially apropos considering the prominence of religion in the upcoming elec-tion. Religio, of course, does not endorse either presidential candidate—though we do hope that Chris-tians reading this will understand that their faith must always inform any political decision they make.

Religio is accessible online at www.duke.edu/web/religio. You can view this issue and our ar-chives at this site. If you are interested in writing or contributing financially, please email us at re-ligio@duke.edu. We hope the following pages will touch you and encourage you to reflect on the ways in which our Christian commitment might become more visible in the world. Enjoy!

3

Grace and Peace,

Nate Jones, Trinity ‘09

Gregory Morrison, Trinity ‘11

Gregory Morrison, Trinity ‘11

People seem surprised that faith is a part of the public political process in the United States. Pundits comment with dismay about a fail-ure of the separation of Church and State. Enlightened Europeans look down their noses aghast, not quite sure what to make of the unseemly role of religion anytime Americans go to the polls. What they fail to un-derstand is the enormity and richness of public Christianity in the West-ern tradition.

For ages, since the conversion of Emperor Constantine, the Church and the State have been the same. People believed in a Universal Christendom, all Christians ruled over by a Christian prince. In the Byz-antine east, the Emperor was both head of the Church and head of the State. He was, following ancient traditions, a step above man, yet a step below God. The head of the Eastern Church, the Patriarch of Constantin-ople, served at the pleasure of the Emperor, who, in turn, served at the pleasure of God. In the West, imperial authority foundered in the fifth century, crushed under the weight of barbarian invasions, and in the midst of the collapse, what stood in for emperor? The Church.

The Pope, on the basis of the falsified Donation of Constantine, claimed supreme spiritual and religious authority. He was and is Vicar of Christ, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church and Head of State of Vatican City. As Christ’s representative on earth, the Pope could appoint bishops and confer legitimacy on secular heads of state. A King could not be King without the blessing of God, and it was the Pope who gave that blessing. Charlemagne received the crown of the Holy Roman Empire from Pope Leo III on Christmas Day, 800 A.D. Only through the consent of the Church was he emperor. As states become more complex, the Church struggled with rulers who sought to diminish the Pope’s temporal

power. In 1077, Pope Gregory VII excommunicated the Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV for having the presumption to appoint a bishop. As a result, Henry’s nobles refused to obey him and insisted that he proceed to the Pope and per-form the required penitence. Henry stood barefoot in the snow, wearing only a hair shirt, for three days, awaiting reception by the Pope. When the audience was finally granted, His Holiness mercifully lifted the bull of excommuni-cation. This trend of papal aggrandizement reached its apogee during the reign of Innocent III (1198-1216).

Let us jump forward from Innocent’s crusading and crowning to the England of Henry VIII. The story is well known: Henry’s first wife, Catherine of Aragon, did not give him a male heir and the pope refused to grant the King an annulment so he could remarry. Henry began a vicious war against Rome, brow beating Parliament into passing laws curbing the authority of the clergy, taxing the Church, and denying anyone the right of a Christian appeal to the pope. In 1534, Henry had Parliament pass the famous Act of Supremacy, declaring the King “supreme head in earth of the Church of England.” Just as the pope once claimed all power, both spiritual and temporal, so, too, now did the king at the expense of Rome. Now, what one believed became a matter of life or death. Being Catholic meant being against the King. Being against the King meant death; the Treasons Act of 1534 made it a capital offense to deny the supreme authority of the King. Thomas More and Bishop John Fisher were both executed on the author-ity of this act.

After Henry, these acts caused tumult. Under the Protestant Edward VI, Catholics were persecuted. Under Queen Mary, Protestants went to the stake. It

The Ancient Politics of Christ

4

was Queen Elizabeth who famously solved the crisis, and she did so by obliging the public practice of faith. Elizabeth’s 1559 Act of Uniformity mandated that people attend Sunday services at Anglican Churches, all of which used the Book of Common Prayer, prepared under royal direction. In her capacity of “supreme governor” of the Church of England, the Queen appointed her bishops, all of whom sat in the House of Lords where they helped make the laws of the realm. By 1673, the King and his Parliament saw fit to make the Test Act law. The Test Act mandated that all public officials swear a public oath pertaining to the conformity of their religious beliefs before taking office.

There is a myth that public notions of faith failed to make the jump from England to America. The Puritans sought refuge in Massachusetts and the Catholics in Maryland. The earliest constitution of South Carolina enshrined religious freedom, and the colony depended on Dissenter and Huguenot immigrants for success. Contrary to this ideal of toleration, most colonies passed laws establishing a state religion. South Carolina made Anglicanism state- supported in 1704. One would think, with the passing of the U.S. Constitution, the churches would become disestablished. Not so. Un-til 1876, North Carolina required that all its legislators be Christian. Until 1877, all of New Hampshire’s legislators had to be Protestant. Today, we publically announce that we are “one nation under God” every time we say the pledge of alle-giance.

The Pope is still head of a state. The Church of England is still the official religion of the United Kingdom, the Queen still appoints her bishops, and her bishops still sit in the House of Lords, effecting laws. People are naturally curi-ous about what others believe about God, and in America, that has always been an important criterion in the selection of our leaders. Just as the Pope made sure of what his emperors believed, and just as the Kings and Queens of England made sure of what their officials believed, so, too, do the American people today like to make sure of what political candidates believe about God before casting their votes. For centuries, Western peoples have known that faith is an integral part of a person. For centuries, public persons have practiced a public faith. What we see today in the guise of Reverend Wright and the “religious right” is merely the continuation of a public discussion of faith—a discussion as old as its subject.

5

Gregory Morrison is Trinity sophomore majoring in History and Public Policy. He regularly attends services at Duke Chapel. In his free he enjoys reading and travel. This is his first issue as editor of Religio.

Religion and Politics:Faith in the 2008 P6

Presidential Election

In today’s American society, religion and politics are undoubtedly intertwined—for better or for worse. Relig-ion plays a special role in presidential politics and has been especially emphasized in the last decade. In 2000, Vice President Al Gore failed to win over many evangelical and highly religious voters, many of whom had supported pre-vious Democrats such as Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. To put it in perspective, support among evangelicals could have won Tennessee and, consequently, the Electoral College for Gore. Moreover, in 2004, George W. Bush built a strong coalition of evangelical, faith-based voters using wedge issues like gay marriage and stem-cell research, all while the Catholic and Democratic John Kerry failed to win a majority of white Catholic voters.

Fortunately, the 2004 election seems like a lifetime ago. It is not unreasonable to say that Democratic nomi-nee and Illinois Senator Barack Obama has transformed this election season and the issue of faith in a completely unforeseen way. Who could have imagined a few years ago that a man with the middle name Hussein and the son of an ex-Muslim father and secular mother would be on the verge of grasping the most powerful and influential office in the country? The answers to these question can and will fill books for years to come.

To understand Obama’s faith and how it guides him today as a father, husband and politician, it is essential to look at his past. Obama grew up without a particular religion and describes his mom as an agnostic. For all the time that Obama did not spend in church as a child, though, he made up for by traveling the world. His diverse back-ground allowed him to witness many of the world’s religions, from Islam to Catholicism, on a first-hand basis. By the time Obama arrived at his twenties, he had seen and processed more cultures, religions and customs than most Americans experience in a lifetime.

Obama’s true spiritual and religious side was triggered once he transferred to Columbia University in New York City from Occidental College in Southern California. Instead of socializing or partying like most Columbia stu-dents, Barack preferred to read in his room, becoming relatively ostracized by his peers. Often, the young Obama would take long walks in the City, usually reserved for deep thinking and contemplation. When Barack graduated and moved back to Chicago to become a community organizer, he discovered the Trinity United Church of Christ, led by the infamous Reverend Jeremiah Wright. As a young man in his twenties still curious about the world and why it functions the way it does, the culture that surrounded the church appealed to Obama. The church was like one big family, everyone knew everyone, acknowledging birthdays, anniversaries and other special occasions.

More than just surrounding himself with people who he could trust, Obama’s church and Christianity repre-sented a philosophy that he admired. As Obama said, “It’s hard for me to imagine being true to my faith—and not thinking beyond myself, and not thinking about what’s good for other people, and not acting in a moral and ethical way.” The Trinity United Church of Christ preached social justice and activism—ideals that form the cornerstone of Barack Obama the politician.

What does religion have to do with this election in particular? There is a reason that Obama is polling so well and is competitive in states that John Kerry never could have dreamed of winning, like Missouri and North Carolina. Barack detests politicians who use faith to divide voters. In his book The Audacity of Hope, he states, “We think of faith as a source of comfort and understanding but find our expressions of faith sowing division; we believe ourselves to be a tolerant people even as racial, religious, and cultural tensions roil the landscape. And instead of resolving these tensions or mediating these conflicts, our politics fans them, exploits them, and drives us further apart.” Obama, despite his liberal record in the Senate, is appealing to religious conservatives previously tied to Bush be-cause of the importance he places on social justice and the middle class. Instead of using faith as an attack tool, Obama preaches equality when it comes to receiving health care, paying taxes and financing education. The Illinois Senator’s emphasis on these issues is resonating well with traditional “red-state voters” and is making them less worried about his leftist views (Obama is pro-choice, for example). Moreover, wedge issues that used to sway the reli-gious right are not dividing the electorate with the same success as in 2004 when Karl Rove engineered Bush’s re-election victory. Sure, rural rustbelt voters might still detest the idea of stem-cell research and gay marriage, but what really matters to them is being able to pay a mortgage or send a child through college without accumulating massive debt. Obama is correct when he asserts, “Our failure as progressives to tap into the moral underpinnings of the nation is not just rhetorical, though. Our fear of getting ‘preachy’ may also lead us to discount the role that val-ues and culture play in addressing some of our most urgent social problems.”

Another major reason the Obama campaign is successfully courting religious voters is that, to many, Obama is perceived as more religious than his republican counterpart, John McCain. Barack is open with his religious be-liefs, partially due to the controversy that surrounded him and his relationship to Reverend Wright that was brought

Will Passo, Trinity ‘11

A Summoning of Higher Truth: The Faith of Barack Obama

8

Will Passo is a Trinity sophomore majoring in Art History. He serves as the secretary for the Duke Democrats.

up in the elongated democratic primary season. Also, anyone can go out and buy his books, Dreams of My Father and The Audacity of Hope, both of which detail the role of religion in his life. McCain’s religious back-ground is more obscure and voters are much less knowledgeable about his past. These perceptions about McCain come at a time when a Republican candidate for office is viewed by default as the pious one.

Obama’s journey to Christianity speaks volumes to what kind of a president he will become. It is no secret that the next president will in-herit a country and a White House in complete disarray. As this article is being written, the severity of our nation’s economic problems is not yet certain and the global financial crisis still dominates headlines. On day one, President Obama will be forced to juggle Wall Street, a gravely unpopular war with no end in sight and various campaign promises, such as health care reform. What should give Americans confidence about the future is that President Obama will calmly and analytically address each problem with the time and intelligence needed. His time spent in Chicago and New York churches dealing with the struggling lower and middle classes guides him and is the reason for his allegiance to working Americans.

President Obama will never make impulsive or rash decisions. Obama the Christian shows that he ap-proaches problems with the utmost concentration and determination. Moreover, Obama’s faith tells us that he does not view the world in a black and white, us versus them and good against evil battle. Just like a patriot questions his or her country, Obama constantly reevaluates Christianity and does not take everything as fact. As Obama says, “My particular set of beliefs may not be perfectly consistent with the beliefs of other Christians.” Barack believes that many religions, not just his own, can lead believers to a happy afterlife. And although Obama believes that salvation can be found through Jesus Christ, he strongly advocates that there are other ways, too.

Obama is not a born-again Christian and did not have an epiphany converting him to Christianity. Rather, over a long period of time of thinking and observing, Barack gradually came to accept Christianity. The values preached to the young Obama, social justice and equality, drive his campaign and influence Barack the husband, fa-ther and politician. As this campaign shows, Obama uses his faith to bring family together and make the world a better place—far from the anti-gay and pro-life religious agenda Americans are accustomed to thanks to the Republi-can attack machine. When the charismatic Illinois Senator makes history and takes office this January he will bring with him his Christian faith, which will provide him guidance, serenity and peace in this difficult time in America’s history. As the future President Obama once said, “Imagine Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address without reference to ‘the judgments of the Lord.’ Or King’s I Have a Dream speech without references to ‘all of God’s children.’ Their sum-moning of a higher truth helped inspire what had seemed impossible, and move the nation to embrace a common des-tiny.”

I will be casting my first of many votes in a presidential election for Barack Obama not only because of his positions on issues ranging from the economy and foreign policy to the environment and social justice, but because of more personal qualities, such as his intellect, reasoning and compassion. The president of the United States of Amer-ica should be the smartest person in the room, not just an ordinary “Joe Six-Pack.” America is an extraordinary na-tion that deserves nothing less than a leader who can live up to the title of president. What I admire most about Obama is that he is a deep thinker. Obama’s path to Christianity proves that he is capable of reaching monumental conclusions by tapping into his thought patterns. The problems that the next president will face are daunting and decisions will have to be carefully made. Obama’s career in public service, his campaign and his performance in de-bates proves that he has the demeanor, patience and judgment to make decisions in the country’s best interest. One of my favorite attributes about Obama is also probably his most criticized: his public speaking ability. However, in a time as turbulent as today, America needs a leader who connects on a personal level with the people. Obama’s elo-quence with words will prove to be instrumental in guiding America out of this mess right now; look how America responded, for example, to John F. Kennedy’s, “ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.” Doubters of the power of Obama’s words have obviously never been to one of his rallies. Seeing Obama speak in blue-collar Greensboro, North Carolina, it was amazing to witness the excitement and optimism from a crowd never having received much attention from any sort of political candidate. The level of engagement was amaz-ing. The world is not the same as it was eight or even four years ago. Barack Obama represents a beacon of hope in America’s future. Behind his extensive knowledge of politics and policy lies a man of deep conviction who values fam-ily, knowledge and justice. I am voting for Barack Obama because not only will his election de-liver wide-spread policy changes that the country so desperately needs, but because he repre-sents a new page in American history—one in which I am deeply honored to participate.

9

I do not want to vote for Senator John McCain.

I have serious qualms with voting for a man who supports the death penalty.

I do not want to vote for Senator Barack Obama.

I cannot vote for a man who supports the legalization of gay marriage or who supports the murder of unborn children.

Seems I’m in quite a quandary, doesn’t it?

I was first asked to look into the topic of voting for McCain this past spring. I felt that I would have no prob-lems writing this article, as my dad always votes Republican, and my grandfather as well. I thought that this would be a bang-bang article about the “religious right” and the Republicans being chosen by God to run this country. I’m exaggerating a little bit, but I still thought this would be far less difficult than it has become.

I think the best way to determine my Christian vote would be to look at Christ’s teachings. When questioned by the Pharisees, Christ says that the two greatest commandments are to love God with all your heart and to love your neighbor as yourself. Before he died, Christ also left us with the new commandment, which is for us to love one another as he has loved us. Taking the teachings of Christ as the paramount authority when it comes to our lifestyle and specifically our voting decisions, I think we need to discern how this should decide our vote.

Another passage to consider when deciding our vote is Paul’s epistle to the Romans. Romans 13 discusses a submission to the authorities. It says that the government is ordained by God to keep order. It says that we have nothing to fear from the authorities, and that only if we commit wrongs do we need to fear the sword of the authori-ties. It says, “This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to gov-erning. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then re-spect; if honor, then honor.” The thing that I fail to see in this passage is anything about love. I do not see Paul tell-ing us that the government can in any way love another man.

The economy is in poor shape right now. I don’t really see us fixing everything in the next couple days. How do we approach the problem as Christians? I believe that we must cut taxes and allow people to retain as much of their money as possible so that they can show love to one another and help out one another through the church and other organizations. We must help and love the poor, aid them with our excess. Senator Obama would have the gov-ernment increase spending and tax the rich, but I feel that is wrong, as the rich are able to use their excess to fund many non-profit and charitable communities. Having the wealthy pay more money to the government would reduce the amount they could use to aid charities. Also, prominent economic scholars claim that taxing the super rich would have a negative effect on the economy. McCain wants to keep more money in the pockets of Americans, which I feel is vital to them being able to love one another by helping the poor. The problem there is having them actually do it. The

government can put people in jail and set up social and welfare programs, but through those programs the government can show no love. On economic issues, I lean toward Sena-tor McCain.

Furthermore, I think that abortion is wrong. I know that Christ says to love one another, and I don’t think we show love to the unborn children when we choose to never give them the chance to live. Senator Obama would like to remove some of the restrictions we have in place to protect the lives of unborn children, while McCain would like to see more restric-tions and even a ban on abortion except in cases of incest, rape and when the mother’s

Grant Meeker, Trinity ‘11

A Christian Vote for John McCain

16

Grant Meeker is a Trinity sophomore. He plan to attend medical school after graduation. He is active in Lutheran campus ministry and enjoys hunting and golf.

life is endangered. Also, I think that gay mar-riage is wrong. Paul tells us that a man should not lay with another man. While I think that gay marriage is wrong, I do not believe that gay couples should have any fewer rights or different rights, legally, than married couples, as I believe that would show a lack of love for one another. I agree with McCain on these issues.

How about the Iraq War? I know that’s a hot-button issue. Let me make one thing clear: I hate war. I feel that deciding anything by saying, “Hey, we killed more of your guys,” is completely backwards. But when diplomacy fails and terrorists begin to attack us and other nations, when we can no longer know who our enemies are, here’s my question: does Jesus not tell us to defend and to remember the poor? How can we, as Chris-tians, stand by and do nothing as we hear of the murders being performed by Saddam’s regime? How could we have stood by and done nothing as people were being extermi-nated by their own government? And how could we stand by with the potential for that violence to spread? I know that when we went into Iraq, we believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. I was among the group that wanted to go, that felt it was a necessary step to protect our nation. While it is clear now that there weren’t any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, I think that we must stay. I think that the invasion was an evil justified with bad information, but that does not mean that we should abort it. I think that we must stay the course, to use the common phrase, and we must not allow this country to fall into chaos and anarchy; we mustn’t forget the poor in Iraq who would be devas-tated by a civil war.

I’m a Lutheran, and Luther said, “Sin boldly.” Bonheoffer, a famous Lutheran theologian, was an ardent pacifist, but in the midst of World War II, he and a group of others organized themselves and planned an assassina-tion of Hitler. Bonheoffer thought that the evil being performed by Hitler was so great that the lesser of two evils, to kill Hitler, must be undertaken if it prevented the murder of more people. Luther said that God does not forgive those who are imaginary sinners but those who are bold in their sin, for their faith in God is stronger still. I do not believe we should plan assassinations or break other laws boldly, but rather my personal belief states that I should know my sin and understand it—I should not fear it, but rather when I sin, know that I sin and praise Christ for giv-ing me the grace that forgives my sin. I trust Senator McCain to lead our country concerning the war in Iraq.

I think that McCain can fix the economy by giving money back to the people and letting us love one another as we are called to do, and I think that we must show that love. I think that the government needs to be a smaller part of our lives, and we need to reach out ourselves instead of just letting the government take care of the poor. I think we need to form the personal relationships the government cannot make. We need to show the love that a pay-check cannot give, the love that Christ showed us, and that is why I am going to vote for John McCain. I think that McCain has the ability to lead this country out of the war when we have finished defending the weak and the inno-cent instead of just thinking about ourselves—not because I feel that abortion and gay marriage are the most important issues, but because I feel we need to defend the poor in Iraq and not simply abort the war. We need to show love to one another, and by having to do it ourselves and take care of the poor, I think there will be more love given and strewn about, better fulfilling Christ’s final and greatest commandment.

11

Duke University is a wonderful, nurturing environment in which students are able to improve themselves as holistic human beings. Part of the draw to Duke in recent years has been a commitment to service, which is promoted by the university and enriched by the people who move through this Gothic wonderland. Duke students display a practicality of intellect by wanting to offer something valuable to the world around them. The newly established program DukeEngage provides a perfect outlet for such pur-suits. The program’s mission statement says, “DukeEngage empowers stu-dents to address critical human needs through immersive service, in the process transforming students, advancing the University’s educational mis-sion, and providing meaningful assistance to communities in the U.S. and abroad.” DukeEngage gave me the opportunity to participate in civic en-gagement at a nonprofit organization in Dublin, Ireland.

There is, of course, no specific faith-based intent to the DukeEngage initiative. The very notion of philanthropy can come from a wide array of human motivations, and while I see the Duke student body as on-the-whole innovative, caring and inspired to do good things, I have had to transition from the view that Christianity must be the underlying model for character. First and foremost, we are linked by a common humanity, and from there we should accept the varying codes by which individuals live. Personally, my Christian faith is a key motivation for the way I live my life and the work that I pursue.

I, therefore, approached my DukeEngage experience excited about the social implications of such a project and thinking about how I could apply my faith to the work I would be doing. Paul says in Colossians 3:23, “Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord.” The message that I took from this directive was that of living God’s word—making my life and my actions an example of God’s love. A vigorous drive to tell others about my faith was not necessary, or even appropriate. I instead focused on individual relationships and religion through action.

Interestingly enough, the nonprofit organization to which I was assigned formed a relevant parallel to my frame of mind. The Spiritan Asylum Services Initiative (SPIRASI) was founded by a Catholic spiritual group in the

late 1990s but does not operate based on faith. SPIRASI provides health and education services for refugee and asylum seekers in Ireland as well as specialized medical care for survivors of torture. It was created in the wake of a huge immigration surge in Ireland in the past fifteen years, which has created a multicul-tural society from what was tradi-tionally a generally homogeneous white Catholic society. SPIRASI’s clients come from around the world, bringing the serious emotional stress that accompanies fleeing persecution in home countries such as Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan and Iran. An organization that serves immigrants with a multitude of cultural and reli-gious practices cannot work from a Christian evangelical standpoint. It can, nevertheless, function with Christian love, and the founders knew and embraced this distinction.

Rachel Revelle, Trinity ‘09

Yours Are the Feet: Practical Faith through DukeEngage

When religion presented itself as a topic of discussion, the following conversation gratifyingly confirmed my previously stated beliefs about religious freedom. We all accepted each other’s differences, but we also found comfort in the likeness that we were each living by a certain religious and moral code.

16

Rachel Revelle is a Trinity sophomore. She regularly attends Watts Street Baptist and sings in Duke Chorale.

Father Tom, as the assistant director, ensured the smooth execution of the organization’s business. Meanwhile, Fa-ther Bill diligently cared for the grounds so that a spectacular garden greeted each individual who walked through the SPIRASI gates. As I got acquainted with the organization and its employees, I learned to perform my duties to the best of my abilities and with optimism for the future of Ireland and its people. I did not need to constantly ac-knowledge my Christian heritage; I was naturally doing good, working for the Lord, with all my heart. Everyone in the SPIRASI network shared a warmth, kindness and acceptance that emulated the glowing light of Christ.

The key to SPIRASI’s warm environment was the fostering of personal relationships. Caution was certainly necessary when interacting with immigrants in various states of emotional well-being, yet I was encouraged to form amiable bonds with anyone who happened to be in the building. Fascinating discoveries and rich insights thus pre-sented themselves over tea breaks and classroom exercises. Of particular note is the friendship I formed with a group of Middle Eastern men that palled around together and welcomed me openly. As we became more comfortable with each other, the huge social and political dilemmas between the United States and the Middle East were condensed into a few memorable conversations in which it turned out that, on an individual level, we shared many values and ideals. For one, everyone was saddened by the amount of fighting in the world that is related to religion. Another shared sentiment was the fact that radicals can have such control over a group or region while the majority of people simply want to live a good life based on their own beliefs. For example, the Iranian told me that public parks in Iran are separated by gender because of strong Muslim belief, and I related how some Christian groups sadly do not allow women in the ministry. When religion presented itself as a topic of discussion, the following conversation gratifyingly confirmed my previously stated beliefs about religious freedom. We all accepted each other’s differences, but we also found comfort in the likeness that we were each living by a certain religious and moral code.

13

This article focuses on the role of faith in the life of a public, political figure. The subject chosen for this article is Nancy Pelosi.

Let us place ourselves for the moment at that peculiar crossroads known as “the intersection of religion and public life.” Every man of conscience emerges from the thicket of his quotidian peregrinations to stumble, now and again, upon these familiar signposts, planted interminably in the demotic grammar: the implication being that the roads, while crossing, never converge. Now I find the signposts suspiciously new, and the roads suspiciously unworn; and I see older and more venerable paths stretching to countries not alien to the human mind: for the mind, insofar as it be moved by the conferences of practical reason and the graces of God, finds that to dissever religion from politi-cal praxis is necessarily to inform one’s decisions not by God but by man. The result is morally repugnant, hostile to the ever-strengthening communion of man with God, which is the very essence of religion; and one such country in which it remains largely foreign is the United States.

I am no historian, but from the solicitously-penned First Amendment, that Congress should make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free practice thereof, I descry, not a separation of religion from politics, but a very deep conjunction. In fact, religion was often used to justify or discredit proposed legislation. Dr. Mark David Hall, a recognized expert on church and state issues, has accumulated an array of examples of this. Consider Article III of the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, which provided that towns might be required “to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality…” Or consider Congress’ hiring of chaplains, or Washington’s issuance of the Thanksgiving Day proclamation, in which is stated, “the duty of all Na-tions to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God”—none of which was in any way unusual.

The reason, I say, for the First Amendment, was not any ostensible incompatibility of religion with the exer-cise of the federal powers; contrariwise, the reason is wonderfully expressed, as Hall shows, in Article XVI of Vir-ginia’s Declaration of Rights: “That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity, towards each other.” This is not dubious historical speculation regarding the intent of recognizing free exercise of religion; it is an explicit historical justification thereof. I also remark that this rationale is not phrased in order to recognize a freedom for its own sake, that is, on the grounds that man ought to be free from something; rather, it grants its freedom because man has a duty to something and must be free in order to exercise that duty which transcends the compulsions of law, according to the dictates of his conscience.

Naturally, much has changed; but it is worth noting, among all of our political bromides, how frequently and how fervently religion is employed to argue in favor of some policy—even among those who, we might say, would be least likely to cleave to religious tradition. I am thinking of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who this August was asked by Tom Brokaw when life begins, a question more suited to a biologist than a politician. After averring that she was an “ardent, practicing Catholic,” she claimed that this was an issue she had “studied for a long time,” con-cluding that “the doctors of the Church have not been able to make that definition,” and citing St. Augustine as some-one who disagrees with the Church’s teaching as of the past “maybe 50 years or something like that.” She continued, “it is also true that God has given us, each of us, a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions. And we want abortions to be safe [and] rare…” Pelosi’s argument strikingly mirrors the founding documents referenced above, if not in respect of their coherence, at least in respect of their common principle: to wit, Pelosi’s justification for her support of legalized abortion is phrased in terms of our duty to God, who has given “each of us a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions,” and so the question of when life begins “shouldn’t have an impact on the

woman’s right to choose.” It is not apparent from the interview whether she supports the right to have an abortion because she believes that people must be allowed to take innocent lives in order to obey their consciences, or because she believes the taking of innocent lives is itself a duty to God. Nevertheless, it is important to note the similarity among these arguments, each of which claims to recognize some freedom because man must be allowed to exercise his will in the service of a higher, religious, responsibility to obey his conscience.

This may seem surprising, and I’m not sure that, if pressed, Pelosi would grant that she bases her pro-choice stance on what she considers to be a duty to God. Yet neither she, nor her spokesman Brendan Daly, nor Senator Joe Biden (who, in response to the same question from Brokaw, justified his posi-tion by claiming that abortion “is a matter between a person’s God, however

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Struggle of Public Christianity

14

Justin Noia, Trinity ‘09

they believe in God, and themselves”), nor many other pro-choice politicians, avoid using this sort of language. It is inherited from our founding documents and our common religious heritage, and the alternative—the suggestion that we don’t have duties to God in this area—is unconscionable to all Christians. Thus our politicians must use age-old moral reasoning in order to justify their positions from the same fundamental assumption that Christians make in jus-tifying their own. This unexpected atavism reminds me of one of MacIntyre’s insights in speaking to the shrill yet decayed state of public discourse today: we find public figures often using terms tumid with moral force but devoid of the noetic content which served to fill them with that force to begin with. Pelosi readily employs her Catholicism, God, and our “responsibility” thereto in her rhetorical arsenal—words perhaps constituting one of the strongest emotional appeals that can be made to Christians—but seems willfully ignorant of her own Church’s teachings under which her responsibility is to desist with her support of abortion. The words, being used to argue in support of that which, prop-erly understood, they serve per se to oppose, are thus rendered meaningless except for purely emotive suasion.

At any rate, is it appropriate, in the political sphere, to justify our actions in terms of our duties to God, pro-vided that we can give an account of those duties? The ken of this question is somewhat broader than it appears: as Christians and as moral agents, is there any other way by which we ought to justify our actions on important matters regarding social, economic, or foreign policies? If not, then politics and religion remain necessarily immixed, and whether we be politicians or clergymen or anyone else, our most sacred duty is to align ourselves with the will of God in all that we do. I take myself to be saying nothing new; on the contrary, I’m affirming an ancient verity. And to deny this is very nearly to deny the possibility of faithful religious practice in community, and—it seems to me—of moral duty as such.

Many U.S. bishops have ventured, with admirable celerity and temerity, among the rapacious political wolves in order to condemn Pelosi’s statements. Is this appropriate? After all, Pelosi speaks for the Democratic Party; the bishops speak for the Catholic Church; both stand vis-à-vis at the crossroads of politics and religion. Yet if they be faithful Christians, as they claim to be, then they must all have recourse to God’s will as the prime determinant of all of their moral decisions.

Accordingly, Father John Zuhlsdorf has noted at least 26 bishops who have responded to Pelosi’s comments. Cardinal Egan (New York) remarked, “Anyone who dares to defend that they [human beings] may be legitimately killed because another human being ‘chooses’ to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be provid-ing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name.” Bishop Vasa (Bend, Oregon) thought that Pelosi’s com-ments seemed to have “nothing to do with any true conviction about the goodness, beauty or truth of the teachings of the Catholic Church but rather pure political expediency.” Cardinal George (Chicago) reminded us, “One cannot favor the legal status quo on abortion and also be working for the common good.” Bishop Murphy (Rockville Centre, NY) likewise said that, “What the Church does teach is the truth that the first and foremost issue is that of human life.” Bishop Naumann (Kansas City, KS) and Bishop Finn (Kansas City-St. Joseph, MO) asked, “What could possibly be a proportionate reason [to support a political candidate] for the more than 45 million children killed by abortion in the past 35 years? Personally, we cannot conceive of such a proportionate reason.” It is also worth noting that Archbishop Chaput (Denver) has made numerous television appearances denouncing Pelosi’s reasoning.

Moreover, Pelosi’s own bishop, Archbishop Niederauer, had this to say: “This teaching of the bishops does not violate the separation of church and state. That separation does not require a division between faith and public ac-tion, between moral principles and political choices. Believers and religious groups may practice their faith and act on their values in public life, and have done so throughout the history of this country. In his or her conscience, prop-erly formed, a Catholic should recognize that making legal an evil action, such as abortion, is itself wrong.”

All of these statements imply that, as a Catholic, and as a person of conscience, Pelosi must change her posi-tion on abortion, following her Church’s unequivocal stance that her duty to God is to defend the unborn. The bishops are arguing from the same familiar and fundamental assumption that animates the founding documents, Pelosi’s and Biden’s arguments in favor of legalized abortion, and that may be observed—I suspect—almost ubiquitously in public moral discourse, whether or not our politicians choose to countenance the meanings of the terms which they too often employ solely for emotive impact. And so we find ourselves again at that intersection from which, as a country comprising a dominant majority of Christians who take seriously the language of du-ties and morals, we cannot extricate ourselves. And as daughters and sons of God, we are reminded that the only way forward is east, towards which horizon we impavidly look with all of our sisters and broth-ers, all of our clergy and prelates, awaiting the rise of the Sun of Justice, and praying that He shine upon us mercifully.

15

Justin Noia is a Trinity senior. In his free time he enjoys God. He also has a soft spot for the Blessed Virgin Mary.

6

7

What was the role of the Church in the lives of ordinary people and in the functioning of the state during the reign of Philip III?

The Church and the Crown become very intermarried in this period. For example the Archbishop of Toledo (the Pri-mate of Spain) was the uncle of the favorite of King Philip III. He was the head of Spanish Church and had the largest purse of any Catholic figure except for the Pope in Rome. And the favorite of the King, the Duke of Lerma, wanted to become a reli-gious person many times in his life according to biographers and letters. The Duke’s maternal grandfather was Francisco Borgia, of the family which produced Pope Alexander VI and who himself became the third general of the Jesuit order.

The King, Philip III, was known as Philip the Pious. He was very devout, and his Queen was, too. She was famous for

every morning starting out her day getting down on the cold floor and kneeling and praying. The King and the Queen patron-ized religious orders too. They started the reformed Franciscan order in Valladolid and a reformed Augustinian order in Ma-drid, which is still there. They were very very religious people. They also commissioned wooden sculpture, which is one rea-son I absolutely insisted on getting sculpture for this show. Previously, painting polychrome sculpture was not considered to be a high art. When Philip II wanted sculpture he got the Italians to come to do it in marble and bronze. The wood carvers were patronized by local confraternities to be carried in processions. Here we are in this period and Lerma and the King both give important commissions to Gregorio Fernandez (who is in the show). Of course, there was no separating a persons’ life in Spain in the early seventeenth century from the role of images and religion. It was one and the same. It was all pervasive. There is one work in the show, by the artist Ribalta, The Vision of Padre Simón, and it was done for street altars. There were altars out in the streets which would have these works displayed. When you had a King and a favorite with that much em-phasis on art, it became all that more important to the daily life of an average Spaniard. What was the place of the artist in a deeply religious society, such as that of seventeenth century Spain?

The majority of artists in our show, who are the major artists in seventeenth century Spain, were either priests, monks, lay brothers in orders or very important members of the cannons of cathedrals or confraternities. In other words, they were really practicing what they preached. They were going into ecclesiastical orders, which, to me, says it all. The artists with court salaries didn’t have to do this, but they did anyway. For example, the still life artist Sánchez Cotán was a religious painter and a still life painter (see Cotán still life on lower-right). As a middle aged man, he decided to give up everything to become a Carthusian lay brother. We have a work in the show which he painted as a Carthusian brother, and I’ve always felt that there was something to the fact that the Carthusians are vegetarians and that they grow their own food, and there he is painting humble things, like you would raise in a back yard vegetable garden. I don’t think that’s an accident. He was looking at these things as products of God’s creation and thinking about his future as a layman monk. What role did art play in the religious experience of a Spaniard around the turn of the seventeenth century?

They used the art to pray. They really did use the art to pray. They used the image to get closer to perfecting their own soul. So you would pattern yourself after the saint that you see portrayed. And it was easier to do because now, in this period, the saint looks like you. They were instruments of prayer. We have documents that tell us that when priests were giving sermons they would often hold up an art work to illustrate their point. So they were really clear instruments for prayer. El Greco, for ex-ample, does in his late period smaller devotional works. There is a little crucifixion in the show that would have been purchased and put in some-one’s home and they would have their own individual devotional work that they would own and use daily.

In the religion of this time, a time when the Counter Reformation

has been won because Europe didn’t all become Protestant, the role of the Spanish Kings, especially since Philip II, was to defend the one true faith from the heretics. This is the Catholic Reformation. So the reformers that were involved with the Counter Reformation, the Spaniards that went to the Council of Trent, were important theologians and they reformed the Church in Spain along the principles dictated by the Council of Trent.

Then the second generation of reformers comes along in Spain, and they’ve been taught by the first generation, and everything is relax-

The Nasher Museum of Art on campus is currently hosting a special exhibit entitled “El Greco to Velazquez: Art During the Reign of Phillip III.” The exhibit features paintings and sculptures by these two masters of Spanish art and their contemporaries. We sat down with Sarah Schroth, an Adjunct Associate Professor and the Nancy Hanks Senior Curator at the Nasher Museum of Art, to discuss this exhibit and the role of religion in the artists’ works.

8

ing. All the stringent rules of decorum and orthodoxy for an artist have been relaxed a bit because they aren’t as worried about being attacked for their imagery. This shows up in the works in the exhibition. Domestic scenes were now allowed; they would never have been allowed in the first generation. This general relaxation is being incorporated into the church itself.

Were the changes in artistic style highlighted by the exhibit influenced by contemporary developments in religious thought and life?

Part of the renewal that is going on during the Catholic Reformation is a new religious practice of private mental prayer. The idea that you no longer had to have a priest and a sacrament be your road to God. You could pray directly to the Godhead and this was new. It was a new concept. It had been suggested strongly by the Jesuits and by others like St. Theresa of Avila and the Spanish Mystics, but they were suspect by the Inquisition and a lot of people who were wary of the image of individual prayer. This second generation is embracing the Jesuit ideas of private prayer, and this is re-flected in the art. Ignatius says that you use all five senses to picture a religious scene and then put yourself there and imagine yourself within that religious moment so that you could then identify closely with the Godhead. So we have new images, and these new images make the religious art look more intimate and domestic. Real life portraiture is being used; real life models are being used for the Saints and for other sacred figures. I like to say that this is the period of the portraitization of the Saints.

We also have a lot of pictures in the exhibition that concentrate on meditation. There’s this tenderness and this

intimacy which, I think, characterizes the art of this period, which reflects this new practice of meditation. This is an off shoot of Ignatius’ meditating on these scenes and represents the idea that you could meditate or pray by yourself, not

through the intercession of the priest. The way this shows up in art is that you have sacred figures meditat-ing in art. We have in the exhibit two pictures of Christ awaiting Calvary by the court artists, similar pictures but in different styles: Christ is sitting there meditat-ing on his future. El Greco shows St. Francis meditating in front of a cru-cifix and a skull. This is the same concept as private prayer. St. Francis, a very popular Saint from his own lifetime forward, is especially popular now because in Spain there were many new reformed Franciscan or-ders founded. The reformed Franciscans are trying to go back to the original rule of St. Francis: extreme pov-erty and obedience, trying to live as close as they could to the life of Christ. So these reformed orders are com-missioning art and they are showing Christ and St Francis in different ways than before. During the catholic reformation, these visions are believed in and embraced. The members and the founders of the reli-gious orders are having visions and these are being painted. One of my favorite pictures in the show is of St. Francis levitating in the sky, receiving the stigmata, two inches away from the seraphim (see issue cover). This is a brand new iconography for St. Francis. If you look at his face it’s in absolute rapture. And this is new. There is this earthiness, and lack of idealization that sets the Spanish images apart from Italian or Flemish Chris-tian images at the time. What I found in trying to re-search this period is that the foundation for the Span-ish golden age of painting is here in this period. They used real life models first; they showed the visions first, they showed the saints in rapture first. How was painting used in Spain as a way of pub-licly addressing faith? The Immaculate Conception is a good example of art being used in questions of faith. We have one statue and three paintings of the Immaculate Conception. One

19

of those images is by Velazquez’s father-in-law and teacher, Francisco Pacheco, and there is a little man in the corner of the composition with a piece of paper. He’s a poet who’s written a refrain which was chanted in the streets of Seville to celebrate the feast of the Immaculate Conception to pro-test the fact that the Dominicans were protesting against the belief. So the Dominicans would never commission a picture of the Immaculate Concep-tion, they didn’t really by it, but the populace loved her so much, that they would carry her image in streets and organize these huge public processions to cry out against the fact that the Immaculate Conception hadn’t yet been made dogma. These pictures in the exhibit are part of that movement. The King and Queen had a different type of devotion, and they were less afraid to support popular belief, for example, in the Immaculate Conception, and they push for it to become a dogma, in part by commissioning art depicting it. Could you speak a bit about the relationship between a patron and an artist, especially when a patron would commission a religious work?

We have two types of patrons that are represented in the show. One

is the Church and one is the Crown. We have royal commissions and then we have commissions from the Church. This is the way that Spanish art is set up: with these two types of patrons. The normal every day layman would be able to experience art commissioned by both. If you went to a church and attended a service, you would see the things produced for the altar piece, and they could have been commissioned by the Benedictines or by courtiers or by the Queen of Spain herself.

When the Archbishop of Toledo commissions El Greco to do the apostles, he is thinking about himself as a new apostle and he wants El Greco’s images to reflect his construction of what he thinks the apostle looked like. You can think about this Archbishop getting dressed in his sacristy surrounded by these apostles and seeing himself as the new apostle preparing to go out and preach to the crowd as the old apostles did. The commission was to further the Archbishop’s own role in the Church.

Another example would be the Duke of Lerma (see image on right) and the image of St. Francis by El Greco. Lerma practiced the spiritual exercises of the Jesuits when he was young, and, low and behold, what shows up in his col-lection but a painting of St. Francis, his name Saint, meditating. Could you give some background on the relationship between El Greco and King Philip III? How did the prevailing government at the time view El Greco's work?

El Greco’s art was not approved of by Philip II, but it was by Philip III. El Greco came to Spain like many Italian artists to try to get work in the decoration of the great big El Escorial project, called in its own day the eighth wonder of the world. Philip II didn’t think that the local painters had enough talent, so he imported painters. El Greco went to see if he could get the King to take him on as one of his court painters. We have a document by the historian of the Escorial who says that the reason why Philip didn’t like El Greco’s work was because he didn’t feel like he could pray in front of it. It was too flamboyant and exaggerated. The narrative wasn’t clear enough, and it was too emotional. By the time Philip III comes along, we learn that the Duke of Lerma owned a St. Francis by El Greco, and once the Duke of Lerma owned one, everybody wanted one. So El Greco begins to be in demand for his religious images. We also know that Lerma’s un-cle, the Archbishop of Toledo, also recognized El Greco’s art. The painting of St. James in the exhibit was commissioned by the Archbishop for his sacristy (see large picture on page 6).

El Greco got his first commission in Madrid (1506-1509), and his art was appraised by two of the court artists in

the show, Pantoja and Carducho, and they gave him the highest appraisal that he’d ever received in his life. There’s a new respect for El Greco in this period. He became the spokesman for this new Catholic Reformation. Now, Velazquez, who also participated in the Immaculate Conception movement, doesn’t come to court until after Philip III dies. The pic-tures we have in the exhibit are from his early period when he was still working in Seville. What’s really interesting to me is that the Dominican monk, Maino, who’s in our show and was one of Velazquez’s teachers, was chosen to be the drawing teacher to the future Philip IV, so he taught Philip IV about painters and connoisseurship. He helped form the taste of Philip IV, and then Philip IV embraces Velazquez. So there’s this direct relationship between one of our artists who helps form a taste in court which helps Velazquez become successful later.

Where I WorshDuke Students Reflect on Their Places of Worship

Deborah Nelson Trinity ‘09

Claire Rivero Trinity ‘09

At 9:00 p.m. on Sunday night, most students are finally hitting the library and realizing it’s going to be a much longer night than we’d planned. We’re not knocking out those problem sets like we’d hoped; we’ve got miles to go on our paper, and that’s just what’s due on Monday! I, and many other students, am still looking forward to the best part of my Sunday. Worshiping at 9:00 p.m. Catholic Mass in the Duke Chapel grants some perspective right when I most need it. The minute I walk through those doors at 9:03 (of course I’m always late), I’m hit not only with the intense beauty of the Chapel lit in its full night-time glory but also with an incredible sense of peace. It just plain makes me happy to be there, as if God sets aside this hour to remind me that the world isn’t so terrible after all. I look around at all the other students, far more bril-liant and probably far more stressed than I am, yet they manage to maintain the right perspective and recognize the importance of being here on Sunday night despite all their other obligations. No one is forced to be there; when I look around at the other students, at the sacristans, at the choir and violinists that give me goosebumps they’re so good, it makes me feel proud to be part of Duke where so many gifted students still choose to come to Mass. I’m hooked from the minute I walk in, but Father Joe’s homilies are always the icing on the cake. These plain-spoken messages truly are miraculous. They never fail to speak to the exact problems that formed the cloud over my head at 8:59. I feel almost certain that if you asked everyone to summarize the homily they’d heard, you’d get as many different answers as people in the pews. Sunday night Mass is truly a thrilling and miraculous experience. I invite everyone to come, at least once; it definitely beats the library.

I’ve attended World Overcomers Christian Church (WOCC) since my freshman year because it is a place focused on glorifying God. I love the participating in dynamic praise and worship, collectively memorizing scripture and learning from the God-centered, practical word Pastor Andy delivers every Sunday. I am grateful for the time I have spent at WOCC getting to know more of God and His people. The vision for the church, “Balanced Victory for the God designed life,” has significantly been manifested in my own life during my years at Duke.

20

World Overcomers Christian Church 2933 S. Miami Blvd. Durham, NC 27703 Worship: Sundays 8:00 and 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m, Wednesdays 7:00 p.m. http://www.wocconline.org/

Duke Catholic Student Center Morning Mass: Sundays 11:00 a.m., White Lecture Hall Night Mass: Sundays 9:00 p.m., Duke Chapel www.catholic.duke.edu

hip... On and Around Duke’s Campus

Katie Saba Trinity ‘11

Chrissy Booth Trinity ‘10

The congregation at Blacknall Presbyterian Church truly seeks to journey together in their faith. Together, we lift up prayers and praises for our families, join in conversation about the scriptures we study and burst into song. Since my fresh-man year, I’ve been grateful to be a part of such a dynamic and supportive commu-nity at this friendly church on Perry Street. I was instantly drawn to Blacknall be-cause of the college class, led by two Duke Divinity School students, which dives into scripture and fosters discussion among students, professors and friends. One semester, our head pastor, Allan Poole, led a study of C.S. Lewis’s “The Great Di-vorce.” The worship services are vibrant, with engaging sermons, a chance for eve-ryone to share prayers and praises and an uplifting music ministry. Each Sunday, the music director writes a few paragraphs in the bulletin about the songs he chose and their history and connection to the scripture we are reading that day. The prayer for confession is consistently one of my favorite parts of the service because we kneel and pray together after silently confessing on our own. This weekly ex-perience serves as a humbling reminder of my own limitations as well as the mag-nitude of grace. Each Sunday at Blacknall, I find myself intrigued by our discus-sions in the college class, challenged by the sermon and reminded by the music of the joy in faith.

When you enter Duke Chapel it is impossible not to be taken aback by the statuesque beauty of the ornately carved details, radiant stained glass windows, and towering stone walls. How-ever, after attending the Chapel, I have come to realize it is much more than a gothic masterpiece. Duke Chapel is an in-credibly welcoming, engaging place of worship. I started regu-larly attending the chapel at the beginning of this semester, and I am continuously impressed by the opportunities for peo-ple, especially students, to become involved with the church. Whether through participating in a Bible study or fellowship group, joining the chapel choir, or helping with or attending a service, there are so many ways to become a part of the chapel family. Each Sunday, I find myself drawn back to the chapel for worship services full of dynamic and moving music, intellec-tually and spiritually engaging sermons, and friendly and fa-miliar faces. I view the Chapel both as a haven from the com-plications of daily life and as a place to learn and grow spiritu-ally surrounded by people who genuinely care.

21

Blacknall Presbyterian Church 1902 Perry Street Durham, NC 27705 Worship: Sundays 8:30 and 11:00 a.m. Sunday School: 9:45 a.m. http://blacknall.org/

Duke University Chapel Worship: Sundays 11:00 a.m. 8:00 p.m. (Goodson Chapel) http://chapel.duke.edu

When I tell people that I am pursuing a joint degree between the Divinity School and the Law School, I often hear some variation of this comment: “Christian lawyer—isn’t than an oxymoron?” This response comes from Chris-tians and nonbelievers alike. Both are instinctively uncomfortable with the idea of law and theology coming together. In part, this discomfort stems from the cultural stereotype that lawyers are intrinsically greedy, dishonest and cor-rupt. This instinctive response also reflects a false dichotomy in our understanding of the world. Under this false di-chotomy, the legal profession is concerned with public life: government, laws, regulations, civil litigation and criminal trials. Religion, on the other hand, is concerned with private life: beliefs about God, personal moral convictions and individual worship preferences. Thus law and religion occupy different spheres: law belongs to the secular public sphere, religion belongs to the religious private sphere.

Christian language about “calling” reveals this dichotomy between public, secular life and private, religious life. We are comfortable with the idea that God calls some people to be pastors. We are less comfortable, however, with the idea that God calls people to secular vocations as well. God might call someone to a religious vocation, but He wouldn’t call them into a secular vocation, would He? If God is concerned with all of human life, however, it makes sense that He would call people into many vocations. In this essay, I hope to show how one particular voca-tion, the legal profession, involves matters that should interest and engage faithful Christians.

The legal system structures our public life. It is broader than the judicial system; it includes the laws passed by legislative bodies, the regulations promulgated by agencies, the common law created by court decisions and a host of other institutions and processes. You encounter the legal system everywhere—for example, when you obey a stop sign, fill out your tax returns or report for jury duty. I want to focus briefly on three key ways that the legal system affects our lives: it embodies moral judgments, facilitates dispute resolution and seeks truth.

First, law embodies our moral judgments. In modern American culture, we are taught to value tolerance and refrain from voicing unpopular views. The legal system, however, has no such qualms; it incorporates and enforces moral judgments on a daily basis. Acts like murder, rape and burglary are criminal offenses because our society de-

Isaac Linnartz, Duke Law, Duke Divinity ‘09

Engaging the World: Law and Christian Faith

22

cided that those actions are so immoral that the state can imprison people who commit such acts. Thus, the very nature of law encour-ages moral discussion and debate. Of course, not everything that is considered morally suspect is legally forbidden. Nevertheless, the idea of moral judgment and the need to define moral boundaries remains an important part of our legal system.

Second, law involves the avoidance and resolution of dis-putes. Legal rules and processes help people resolve disputes with-out resorting to violence or coercion. In addition, the legal system establishes standards and norms that streamline our communal life. Some of these standards reflect moral judgments—murder is a felony because it is morally wrong. Other standards simply estab-lish uniform patterns of behavior so that we can live together more harmoniously. Traffic laws are a good example. There is no moral reason for requiring that people drive on the right side of the road, but traffic flows much smoother when that convention is observed.

Third, the legal process involves a search for truth. This truth-seeking function is most evident in judicial process, especially in trials. Most trials initially focus on finding facts before determin-ing their legal consequences. Is this defendant the person who com-mitted the crime? Did that defendant breach a duty of care and thereby cause injury to the plaintiff? Even the complex procedural rules that govern trials are ultimately designed to ferret out the truth.

These are all important aspects of how humans live together in community. And although these issues may be categorized as “public,” God still cares about these issues. He cares about what moral judgments we make, how we resolve disputes, and how we seek truth. These issues are vitally implicated in Christ’s command to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:39). Christians who have been trained in the legal profession understand the com-plexities of the legal system and are thus well-situated to understand and engage these issues. At the same time, their faith gives them a unique perspective and deep resources for making moral judgments, resolving disputes and seeking truth.

Nevertheless, Christian lawyers often separate the practice of law from the practice of religion. For example, some Christian lawyers primarily understand their calling to be making money to support mis-sions. “I can’t serve people directly, but I can make money to support worthy causes.” Others focus on the ideal of excellence. “God wants his people to strive for excellence in everything, so I should work to be the best lawyer I can become.” This assumes that God defines excellence in the same way that the legal profession de-fines excellence. Neither of these is a satisfactory alternative. Being a Christian lawyer should mean something more than being a lawyer who goes to church on Sunday. Instead, it should mean thoughtfully engaging the legal system as a disciple of Christ. That means working within the system where it is good, and working to change the system where it is broken. In doing so, Christian lawyers demonstrate love toward their neighbors. Obviously, this account leaves a great number of questions unanswered. Nonetheless, we cannot truly follow God’s calling until we recognize that God calls us to public life, not just private religious experience.

Jesus did not preach a gospel of private religion adherence. Instead, he preached a revolutionary gospel that was contrary to the dominant social order. It was so revolutionary that the political leaders tried him, sentenced him to death and had him executed. He calls his disciples to the same sort of integrated life, one that faithfully engages the world. During his earthly ministry, Jesus said, “I am the light of the world” (John 8:12). We are his followers, his disciples. To us, the Body of Christ, he says, “You are the light of the world” (Matthew 5:14-15). May we be that light even in the “secular” professions.

Being a Christian lawyer should mean something more than being

a lawyer who goes to church on Sunday. Instead, it should mean thoughtfully engaging the legal

system as a disciple of Christ.

23

Isaac Linnartz is in his fourth and final year of a joint degree program between Duke University School of Law and Duke Divinity School. He and his wife Jacki live in Dur-ham and attend Resurrection United Methodist Church.

I am arguing with a woman over a pair of jeans. It is June 2007 and we are in the clothing closet at Urban Ministries of Durham (UMD), the city’s largest homeless shelter. As a summer intern, one of my jobs is to help visitors navigate the clothing racks, and afterwards bag and record their finds. The process is understandably meticulous because UMD clothes hundreds of individuals each month and highly desirable items must be ra-tioned. At a shelter whose residents are overwhelmingly male, the most precious of these commodities are men’s work jeans.

This woman wanted a pair of jeans for her teenage son. However, it would set her over the two-jean limit per person. Good-naturedly, I explain our clothing policy expecting to receive a good-natured response. Instead, she tells me I am stingy. Returning to the racks, she complains that everything is ugly and disorganized. After she finishes shuffling through more clothes, the volunteers and I quietly bag her items. She leaves without thanking us.

I had never witnessed anything like this. How could she, in the position of need, be so deliberately offensive and ungrateful? Did she realize this was a free service organized by volunteers? Did she forget the other individuals

who, like her, rely on UMD’s fairness of distribution? I relayed the incident to Tom, the director of the eve-ning shelter and also my supervisor. Tom, always per-spicacious, gave a response that stopped me: “Some people will only give with preconditions. They give what they want how they want.”

Before I could think to justify myself, the Holy Spirit arrested me. I realized that I wanted this woman to be satisfied with whatever I was willing to give her. I was the powerful one and she was the pow-erless. In viewing this situation with such myopic eyes, I could not see God. I forgot that no matter how I’ve acted toward God, He has always treated me with unending gentleness, kindness and patience. If my Father has shown me such measureless grace, how could I not extend this same grace to my sister and neighbor? The rules could not be changed in this situa-tion, but my heart towards this woman certainly could.

My relationship with the Lord has shaped my understanding of service and community. Further, it has inspired the inception and mission of The Magno-lia Tree Project, an undergraduate service organiza-tion I co-founded during my freshman year. Our small group guides local 5th and 6th graders through in-depth volunteer projects using the creative arts. We believe that every person, regardless of their age or back-ground, can improve the lives of those around them. As an organization, we are constantly thinking about what it means to sincerely serve others. Through every volunteer project, I am finding this out by re-membering about the character of God. I’ve learned at the heart level that:

Dinh Xuan T. Phan, Trinity ‘09

I had never witnessed anything like this. How could she, in the position of need, be so deliberately offensive and ungrateful? Did she realize this was a free service organized by volunteers? Did she forget the other individuals who, like her, rely on UMD’s fairness of distribution?

For More than this Life: Love and Christian Service

24

25

God loves people even when I don’t.

It is humbling to know that even when I don’t love some-one, God still loves them deeply and completely! His love is never halfhearted; it is never insufficient. I can rely on His boundless love more than I ever will my own condi-tional generosity.

God teaches me things I never thought I had to know.

At one point, I believed service meant putting in a few hours on Saturday or a f e w c a n s d u r i n g Thanksgiving. It is God who taught me that true service means giv-ing freely out of what I have generously re-ceived. And what have I received from God ex-cept what is most valu-able and precious? That is, the life and resurrec-tion of His only Son.

God ’s love is for more than this life.

John 14:6: “Jesus answered, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’” In Christ, death has been conquered. For those of us who want to live like Christ and feed the poor, heal the sick and be with the forgotten, we must also share the love of Jesus. Not because of our “personal agendas,” but because Jesus’ love changes lives literally forever.

It thrills me to work with The Magnolia Tree Project or engage in other acts of service because I know I am relying on, walking with and learning about Jesus. I realize that, through every act of ser-vice, God is whispering to me the beautifully layered account of the life and resurrection of Christ. This true story in which God is my Everything—teacher, best friend, gift-giver.

I realize that through every act of

service, God is whispering to me the beautifully

layered account of the life and resurrection of

Christ. This true story in which God is my

Everything—teacher, best friend, gift-giver.

Dinh Xuan T. Phan is a Trinity sen-ior. She is involved in the Cam-bridge Christian Fellowship. Dinh co-founded The Magnolia Tree Pro-ject, an undergraduate service or-ganization. After graduation she plans to go into education or Univer-sity development.

As a kid, I had some wild, albeit pretty typical, dreams of what I would do when I grew up. Mostly, I envisioned being a U.S. Air Force pilot or an Atlanta Braves baseball player. There was not a great commonality across my dreams—except that they all in-volved a nearly majestic heroism and glory.

So by the time my senior year at Duke rolled around, and my childhood ambitions seemed sufficiently out of reach, I realized it was time to implement “Plan B.” The only problem was that “Plan B” was still nothing more than a collage of random aspirations that seemed somewhat more achievable. Yet over time and over prayer, God opened some doors and closed others, and “Plan B” steadily morphed from an amorphous brainstorm into a vision of work as a management strategy consultant.

Work as a business consultant is a long way away from work as an Air Force pilot. During my time in busi-ness, I have had my fair share of late nights when I find myself punching away on an excel sheet at 3:00 a.m. won-dering why God has placed me here for this point in time. A few months ago, after a particularly long week, I remem-ber collapsing on my couch, staring up at the ceiling, and asking God out loud, “Why did you put me here? What am I doing with my life?”

My struggle is not that the life I lead is particularly arduous. Honestly, few in the history of the world have lived a life as full of material possessions and comforts as mine. I struggle with my job—day in and day out—because I have a deeply imbedded sense that I was called to do something greater, to change the world, and maybe even to

become famous. So when I find myself up at 3:00 a.m., punch-ing keys on an Excel table, trying to decode an encrypted marketing budget so that I can intelligently discuss a super-market’s perspective on the economics of dried apricots at an 8:00 a.m. meeting the following day, I occasionally feel de-pressed. At that moment, the majesty disappears, and this job feels like it comes with a hard burden and a heavy yoke.

At one point, my struggles led me to consider joining the min-istry. I thought that at least there I could make an impact in the world and be used to do something awesome to bring glory and fame to Christ. I felt that surely that would be an improvement; I would be engaged in a career with an eternal significance. As I remember that feeling now, that desire to terminate what felt like an ill conceived career, I thank God He did not open the door for me to pursue it.

I am thankful first because living life as a Christian business-man has exposed my greatest weaknesses and taught me to rely on God to overcome them. My pride didn’t stop at a de-sire to accomplish great things in my career—it extended into my notion of self-enhancement. I had a notion that I could gain control of my weaknesses by discipline—that all my sin could be stomped out by power of my will. As I grew increas-ingly impatient, tired, and stressed at my futile attempts to accomplish everything I wanted to do, I concluded there was something faulty with my efforts. Sure, I could put a shock collar around my neck and condition myself to be patient, considerate, and even appear Christ-like to my coworkers, but that would not change my attitude. I needed to be pushed far outside my comfort zone in order to throw my hands up and rely on God’s love to have its way with my pride.

This job has also given me a unique opportunity to live the gospel. On a day-to-day basis, I interact with some of the

Bayard Friedman, Trinity ‘07

20

Not About Me... Being a Christian in the World of Business

smartest, wealthiest people in the world, and sadly, only a handful of them have met Jesus. Evangelism is harder in the work place right out of college because there is a totem pole and you are at the bottom of it. However, I spend more hours per week with the people I work with than anyone else; so slowly and surely we find out a lot about each other.

One day, after grabbing lunch with my boss, we were walking back to the office, and he just kind of blurted out, “I need to get into church again.” Frankly, I had done nothing to lead the conversation towards the spiritual realm. It was sort of a confession of guilt, a cry for help. He knew I was a Christian, that I loved Jesus, and that I went to church, and as best I can tell, he just felt guilty for straying from the faith. I told him God loved him, that my church was my family and I love it, and that he was missing out by not being in a church. The next Monday when we were grabbing lunch he told me all about church and how it had just helped center him on what was really important with the week ahead. It was cool. It was a subtle moment of God reminding me that living as a Christian in the wilderness causes people to reflect back on their own life and consider why they bother to live it.

Finally, I have learned from this job that “my” career is not my own. One day in my Bible, I came across this phrase: “And whatever you do, do it heartily unto the Lord,” and after reading it again, I sat up in my chair and smiled. Maybe God doesn’t care so much about the personal glory that I find myself seeking. My career and my life are fleeting things that can change in a moment, but He has promised to work it for His glory as I work unto Him. I don’t really know how or if I will ever use the skills I am developing now from work to His glory, but I know that as I wake up daily and surrender my time and my desires to His calling for this phase of my life, He will be at work, with a far more perfect plan than I have, to take whatever I am doing and use it for His good. This career is not about my plan; it’s about His.

Bayard graduated from Duke in 2007 with a major in Economics. At Duke he was a committed member of Sigma Phi Epsilon, Campus Crusade for Christ, Leadership Edge, Mock Trial, and PBUILD. Bayard is now an Associate Consultant at Bain & Company in Atlanta, and is a mem-ber of Peachtree Presbyterian Church.

27

On Wednesday, October 1, 2008, Path-ways at Duke sponsored an event, led by Mark Storslee and moderated by Ian Baucom, discussing the question: “Can a Good Christian be a Good President?” Panel participants were Paula McClain, James Joseph, Peter Feaver, Jay Carter and Sam Wells. Below is an excerpt from the discussion.

Ian Baucom, English Professor and Department Chair: The question, “Can a good Christian be a good presi-dent?” implies that the answer is not obvious, that there is some tension be-tween these two ways of being in the world.

Paula McClain, Professor of Politi-cal Science and Director of the Ralph Bunche Institute: I view my form of Christianity, my view of the world, as one in which I do good and address social ills in the world. I didn’t really like this question about a “good” Christian because I think there’s this underlying notion that there’s this one definition of what we mean by “Christianity.” We have many different denominations where people come at these questions from very different per-spectives. But there are lots of people that perceive themselves as good Christians that I would definitely not want to see sitting in the White House. Now does that make them not a “good” Christian? It just means that from my particu-lar viewpoint—particularly if they’re an absolutist in the sense that there is a clear demarcation between right and wrong and good and evil—that to me would not be something I would want to see.

James Joseph, Professor of the Practice of Public Policy Studies: “Can a good Christian be a good president?” It’s a provocative question, filled with ambiguity. In the academic community, you usually start with the ambiguity, but I am going to resist that. I had the privilege of serving under a president who was a good Christian. I served un-der four presidents and Jimmy Carter was the first. I got to know him very well and he epitomized what one would have in mind when you talk about a good Christian. Regardless of what you might think of his performance as presi-

dent, he certainly was a good Christian. He did all of the things that I would call the “micro-ethics” having to do with private behavior. He did all of the things that I would describe as “macro-ethics” of public values. He cared about people, he went to church regu-larly. He took his faith seriously—he didn’t just pretend to be a Christian. He was a Chris-tian. So I would answer the question, “I knew a good Christian who was a good president, so I would say yes.”

Peter Feaver, Alexander F. Hehmeyer Professor of Political Science: In terms of the question, I would broaden it. I think it is very, very hard to be a good Christian and I know none who can do it on their own strength. I would say that’s about as tough a calling on your own power as there is in the world. The next toughest calling might be to be a good president. I think it’s an extremely difficult job. I’ve worked for two presidents, in this Bush White House and the Clinton White House. I saw up close just how demanding that job is. But, I think that there are lots of other demanding jobs that put in tension one’s faith. I think it’s very hard to be a good Christian and a good political science profes-sor. So, I think the mixing of one’s vocation—which is answering God’s call on your life and your career—that’s very challenging in every single domain. But the presidency is a uniquely difficult job. That’s especially hard.

Can a Good Christian Be a Good President?

14

A Dialogue on Campus

Jay Carter, Associate Professor of Theology and Black Church Studies: There are a couple things embedded in this question. One is, can you be a good Christian? That’s a hard question. I could concede that Jimmy Carter is exemplary as a good Christian who was a public servant. But I think it’s hard to be a good Christian, you have to work at this. We are in a social space where it’s often difficult to act out good Christianity. I don’t think that this comes naturally, nor necessarily easily. But that doesn’t mean it can’t happen. And there’s the other question, can you be a good president? I actually think that that’s also difficult to do. It’s also in a social space and political environment where there are many forces con-spiring against that happening. But I think that can happen too. And then, of course, aside from the ab-stract question of “can one be a good Christian?” and “can one be a good President?” there’s the very con-crete question of the political environment that we’re in right now. And the subtext of our political envi-ronment right now is really the question around the Christianity of this black man next to the Christian-ity of somebody else he’s competing against who happens to be a white man. Never before in the history of our coun-try have we had that kind of head-to-head on this racial sub-question. It operates on many levels because it operates not just at the top of the ticket but also at the second position of the ticket because we have somebody there who lays claim to being a good Christian and prays that God would lead the country. My own leanings are suspicious of that kind of thing. But nevertheless, we have those claims going on, too. But inside the broad, macro questions at the in-tersection of religion and politics, there are the concrete dimensions of that question in this particular moment in this particular juncture in our country’s history. And when we throw that in it gets even more combustible.

Sam Wells, Dean of Duke Chapel and Research Professor of Christian Ethics: I want to say two things that make it difficult for Christians to engage in politics, particularly in the West. First, there’s the widespread assumption that politics is fundamentally about the distribution of goods which are fundamentally scarce. That’s almost universally agreed. This is the richest coun-try in this history of the world and yet our political discourse is dominated by the language of scarcity—that there aren’t enough resources, there isn’t enough information, there isn’t enough wisdom. And I would say that’s fundamentally a theological claim because it comes back to the notion that there isn’t enough revelation and that’s fundamentally predicated on the notion, I would suggest, that there isn’t enough God. And so, to use the language of the-ology, our political discourse is largely about theodicy—that is, to say, it’s trying to find good ways of getting God out of the hole that was made by God not having done a good enough job of making us and redeeming us—hence we have all these problems. So politicians are kind of theologians who are trying to rescue the situation in a situation of fundamental scarcity. Now I think that’s a fundamental theological mistake. I think the problem in the world is not that God hasn’t given us enough. It’s that God has given us too much. Our imaginations simply aren’t big enough to take in the “too much” that God has given us. All we can see is scarcity. To enter general political discourse in this country, one has to assume the language of scarcity because that’s the language that everybody speaks. And so I think Christianity is fundamentally in tension with that discourse. And that makes it difficult for Christians. And the second thing that makes it difficult for Christians is that Christians are inclined to be keen to talk the language of “good,” so keen that it appears twice—not once, but twice!—in the question for this evening. That suggests that Christians have a stake in the word “good.” However, in the consensus of “how we’re all to get along,” the conventional answer is that we avoid using the word good. We just

take the word “good” off the table because we’re aware we have such con-flicting notions of “good.” It becomes very difficult, then. Rather than poli-tics be a matter of the best use of the superabundant gifts of God—in other words, a discourse about goodness—politics instead becomes something we can all agree on, which is the carving up, as justly as possible, of the scarce resources of the world. So, in a sense, Christians are only welcome to join that conversation if they accept the rules of the conversation, which are “don’t use the word good because it’s a value judgment” and “accept the fact that the things we’re going to talk about are things that are funda-mentally scarce.” The trouble for Christians is that the things that are in-teresting to talk about are things there are actually too much of—love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness and so on. But love, joy, peace, pa-tience, kindness and goodness are non-legitimate subjects for political dis-course—in the discourse we’re talking about—and that’s what makes it difficult for Christians to participate.

29