&c.
1
GeneratInG IDeas
•
FosterInG DIaLoGue
•
RenewInG CommunIty
1 MARCH 2016 WINTER ISSUE 7
A MODERN TALE OF
HARLOTRY
BY CAMERON WYENBERG
Find the first scenes in the
January 26th issue and continuing weekly from the February
16th Issue
Scene 3: Tuesday
A solitary table. Single light
illuminates two men. NAME sits
upright in his chair, stage left, hands
limp in his lap. He stares at the man
before him. BROTHER sits opposite
him, stage right, arms crossed,
leaning back in his chair, a scowl
on his face, returns NAME’s stare.
They remain silent for a moment.
NAME: You wanted to talk to me.
BROTHER: (Looks away to
the right, then returns NAME's eye
contact) How is Amy Lo?
NAME: (It is now his turn to
look away, but he looks down at
his own hands, slowly clenches
them) Your niece is doing well.
(BROTHER fidgets at the word
"niece") Amy Lo... she still enjoys
stories. But there is a sadness to
her. (NAME returns BROTHER's
look.) I think she understands now
that stories are useless. What good
are happy endings in her tragic life?
(NAME cracks a sardonic smile, but
BROTHER's face is impassive)
BROTHER: Tragedy? (A long
pause, and then softer.) It is a
scandal.
NAME: (His smile fades, and he
looks once again at his hands) Do
you... do you remember the stories
we told as kids? The ones about a
mousBROTHER slams his hand on the
table, and is now sitting forward.
BROTHER: (Seething, but
controlled. The volume of his voice
is still calm) Are you even listening
to me? It is a scandal, and everyone
knows about it. Not just our family;
everybody in this town knows about
it.
NAME: (Still looking down) I
know.
BROTHER: Then do something
about it! (BROTHER roars, standing
up, unaware he knocks his chair
over. He begins pacing the room,
moving in and out if the light.
NAME looks at continued on page 2
"IN A LAND FAR, FAR AWAY" ...
OR A LAND MUCH CLOSER TO HOME?
BY ROB COLLIS
It was with a general sense of amusement that I
read my Welsh friend's critique of the Myers-Briggs
personality assessment in the Et Cetera on February
23. For one who is unfamiliar with the psychometric
test, to become bombarded with questions as to your
personality type would understandably be disorienting: What do you mean by what type am I? Indeed,
having heard from Craig Gay in CTC last semester
that the driving force behind modernity is to find a
way to “systematically master” and manipulate our
environment, one might understandably have reason
to ascribe to Myers-Briggs the notion that it indeed
seeks to categorically label and stereotype all of
humanity in a left-hemisphere-dominated society (to
use McGilchrist's distinction of the hemispheres).
Such an assessment seems appropriate for the
seemingly magical properties which can be ascribed
to one's personality type; indeed, colloquially
Myers-Briggs is seen as the archetypal definition of
who a person is. To instantiate that the Myers-Briggs
assessment can define a person's identity is worthy of
our Welsh friend's critique. It is also to fundamentally
misunderstand, and thereby abuse and misappropriate
the test's claims and intentions.
Myers-Briggs is not intended to define who any
person is; it is meant to explain what a person is like.
It’s an assessment of one’s personality type: “what
you prefer when you are using your mind or focusing
your attention.” To suggest that a psychometric test
could define a person would indeed be ludicrous! It
would be an over-valuation of humanity's capacity to
master and manipulate; it would be the very realisation of not only Craig Gay's criticism of modernity,
but also McGilchrist's criticism of the left-hemisphere's dominance of society. Where Myers-Briggs
is used to define who we are, I whole heartedly
agree that something is wrong. Myers-Briggs is not
meant to "define the self," but rather to provide a
window into how we are each uniquely wired; it's an
explanatory tool to better our own self-awareness for
how our brains prefer to process, think and operate.
Myers-Briggs offers us an explanation for where our
strengths and weaknesses lie; for how we best find
our energy; for how we seek to take in and process
information; for how we prefer to make decisions; for
how we tend to respond and act after we have made a
decision.
Myers-Briggs is not magic. It doesn't pretend
to try and define who we are; it endeavors to aid
us in better understanding our self. Indeed, since
Myers-Briggs does not seek to define and separate,
but rather explain and appreciate continued on page 3
THE SEVEN DEADLY SINS: GLUTTONY
BY PRESTON GORDON
For the remainder of the semester the Et Cetera will
be running a series on the Seven Deadly Sins. If you're
confident that you could write a great article, I'm still
looking for an author to cover pride. Contact me if
you're interested! - Ed.
Gluttony. The term sounds archaic and even
humorous to the modern churchgoer, and likely
also to many of us. Growing up in my homeland,
the wonderful Southern states of the USA, those
attending church would be more likely to indulge
in a sumptuous home-cooked buffet at the church
potluck after the Sunday service than to hear a
sermon on gluttony. But the church has not always
laughed off gluttony as a third-rate sin; Gregory
the Great famously included gluttony in his list
of the seven “deadly” sins. So how does a sin go
from one of the seven deadliest for Gregory, John
Cassian, and every other monk in the desolate
deserts of Egypt to near extinction for the church
today? Is there anything we should heed from these
hungry monks about our own food consumption?
Gluttony was identified as a “deadly sin”, or
“cardinal vice”, because like the other vices, they
lead to a whole host of wayward thoughts and
actions that guide one away from a life centered
on the gospel. One modern commentator described
the list as seven “terminal spiritual illnesses” –
they make us, and society, sick. Gregory defined
gluttony as eating “too soon, too delicately, too
expensively, too greedily, [or] too much.” Thomas
Aquinas later added that gluttony is an “inordinate
desire” for food that distracts one from loving
God. The sin itself is twofold: it treats oneself and
one’s belly as of primary importance, and it either
idolizes or abuses God’s good gift of food.
These distinctions show us that gluttony is
not actually about eating, but about how we are
eating. Furthermore, gluttony is much broader
than simply over-eating! Working off of Gregory’s
definition, we see that one does achieve the label
of glutton for eating too much, but also eating
incessantly, finding oneself preoccupied with
food when not eating, demanding only to eat very
fine or expensive foods, and finally, making food
consumption the center of
continued on page 2
2
1 MARCH 2016 WINTER ISSUE 7
GLUTTONY one’s life. In other words,
excessive dieting or
continued from page 1
compulsive obsession over
every morsel of food (“is it organic?”) that
enters one’s mouth can be equally gluttonous
to gorging at the buffet.
So are we sick with gluttony? Ponder a few
more questions with me: is eating a coping
mechanism for you? Or, are you prideful
and ungrateful if someone offers you food
that does not fit into your eating palate? Do
you consciously think about food as a gift
from God and work to steward it as a finite
resource? Further, do you consider the impacts
your food choices may have on others around
you? I believe this last question is one reason
gluttony has been rarely discussed in our
wealthy Western world. The monastics living
SISTER SOPHIA'S ADVICE COLUMN
Dear Sister Sophia,
You know how one big question of the
gospel stories is, “Who is my neighbour?”
Well, I wonder if I'm permitted to change that
question to one slightly different. How do
you feel about answering the question, “Who
is my family?”
Family-Shmamily
Dear Family-Shmamily,
Right. Nothing like another angsty
question for the week. I'm starting to wonder
how any work is getting down around these
parts; it seems like everyone is fairly caught
up with big questions that have nothing to
do with theology at all. Maybe you should
save these types of things for after you're
done at Regent. It's probably true that you
have atonement theories to differentiate and
commit to memory, or some 1000 pages of
the Old Testament left to read, or a paper (or
ten) to write on something that matters a lot.
Family? Really? I'm not sure it's worth
my time to address something as basic as
that. There must be a whole host of other
people who would be better to respond to a
question like that. My first suggestion would
be a DNA analyst along with a genealogy
expert. That should get you to a) who is
related to you, biologically speaking, and b)
who is related to you, relationally speaking.
If you have anything else you'd like to know,
like, those atonement theories or something,
feel free to write in again. I could really help
you sort some of that out.
Ha.
You've asked only the biggest question.
Ever. Ok, maybe not that, but this is a
complicated question and you've unhelpfully
given me basically nothing to go off in terms
of your background or what you're really
asking. Could you at least have defined
your terms? For starters, what do you mean
by “is”? I think we could spend some time
really getting into that. As it is, I'll have to
make some fairly large assumptions. Let's be
honest: that makes it much easier for me to
write whatever I want.
It just so happens I've been asking myself
that very question as of late. In some ways
I wish that I could simply point to my mom
and dad, my siblings, their spouses and kids,
maybe a few cousins and a grandparent or
two and say, “Ta-DA! Behold! My family.”
And, I course I am able to do that, as perhaps
you are. My last name says something about
me, as yours says something about you.
Our last names align us with some familial
connection and story, however sordid and
in-need-of-restorative-grace that story is.
Don't get me wrong; I think I think that
matters. But, there's some other complicating
factor that has to encompass and encapsulate
this immediate family thing. Depending on
your lineage, you may find that a relief.
Apparently, at least according to one
of Regent's esteemed professors, upon our
baptism our allegiance changes. It signals
a profound reorientation to the Lordship of
Jesus. The funny (hilarious!) thing is that
when we find ourselves “in Christ” by the
power of the Spirit (which happens to be
the only way that happens) we don't find
ourselves there alone. Now, get this. We
find ourselves with brothers and sisters in
Christ. Ontologically speaking (is there any
other way to speak?), we are actually related
to these random people. This people is our
tribe. It actually just is, whether we like it
(or them) or not and whether it “feels” like
it or not, whether it is functioning on the
ground as such or not. As with so many
things that have to do with the people of
God, it might be that we're just shy of
expressing our nature perfectly. This might
be one of those few pesky areas where we
are still falling short. One thing is sure: as
we respond over the course of our lives to
God's adoption of us in Christ, we find we
have not been adopted alone. And we find,
if we are attending to Scripture and the
witness of his Spirit in our hearts, that we are
supposed to get along with, and support, and
encourage, and come alongside, and exhort,
and forgive, and seek forgiveness from, and
be reconciled to, and give to those others
that are there, too. Somehow - it really is a
mystery - these are our family. Now, in terms
of the workings out of this in the day to day,
I would love for you to let me know when
you've written a book on the topic. At the
end of the day, at the end of every day, Jesus
says to us, “Come.” And, when we do, we
don't come alone.
Sincerely,
Sister Sophia
Do you have a question for Sister Sophia? Direct your
queries to etcetera@regent-college.edu
during the Roman Empire and the Middle
Ages could directly see how overconsumption
and waste caused others to go hungry. I think
we all know the voracious appetite of our
consumption-driven, excessive culture still
contributes to others going hungry, but, more
often than not, those suffering are far enough
away to keep us insulated from their suffering.
continued on page 3
How do we steer our
A MODERN TALE
the chair. BROTHER is
still in the light) My little
brother, teacher, scholar, sage (he now exits the
light) married to a harlot, a cheap whore that
hardly brings in enough cash to pay the bills.
She would do better working at a diner; then at
least she could get a discount on the food and
better feed her family! She could even still turn
tricks after work for a little more! (BROTHER
moves back in the light, his face softened) And
think of AMY LO, little brother. Does she not
demand a better place to live? Do you not care
what damage you are causing her? What abuse
she silently endures? You said she already
understands sadness. What ever happened to
children being innocent and pure? What about
her childhood? What about silly stories with
happy endings? Do you have no care for that
child? (NAME winces. BROTHER moves back
into the dark, his voice now harsh and biting) But
of course you don't think of her; you only think
about GOMER. You stay by that whore's side
while every night she lays by another man's side,
pleasing his needs while her own family starves.
And she enjoys it! What need has she to change?
She is enraptured every night by other men: men
of money, men of power, men of fame, knowing
that she can always return to you if troubles
come. I say again, what need has she to change?
(BROTHER enters the light again, a look of
compassion towards NAME, standing near the
chair he knocked over.) You deserve much better
than this. You have every right to demand a
better life. You have paid your dues.
NAME: (Still looking at the chair that was
knocked over) Right? What right do I have to
demand?
BROTHER: (Still in the light, compassionate)
Every right. You have acted faithful when others
were faithless; you have shown compassion in
the face of injustice; you have loved the unloveable, the unwarranted, the stranger. What point
is there in staying when she has taken all of your
inheritance and squandered it on pigs?
NAME: (After a moment of silence) What
would you suggest I do, brother?
BROTHER: (BROTHER walks into the dark)
What is just. Abandon her, as she has abandoned
you. Be rid of her; forget her. (BROTHER exits
stage right)
NAME stands up, moves to the other side
of the table, puts the chair BROTHER was
occupying aright.
NAME: How can I forget her? I would deny
myself.
Name stays standing next to the chair, looking
longing at the empty seat BROTHER once
occupied. The lights fade.
The lights return. The same table; NAME sits
where his brother once sat. GOMER sits across
continued from page 1
continued on page 4
3
1 MARCH 2016 WINTER ISSUE 7
IN A LAND FAR, FAR AWAY
continued from page 1
our differences and individual nuances, it seems far
more appropriate for the Christian to consider this
psychometric analysis not as a means of labelled
division, as Paul seeks to address in Galatians, but as
a picture of how we are all uniquely and wonderfully
made. We are created in the image of God, and yet
we are all different; we are the body of Christ, and
yet we are hands and feet, eyes and ears, arms and
legs. We are members of the same body of Christ;
and, indeed, some of our members are more sensitive
or appropriate to different stimuli or purposes, but no
single member is any less valid or of any less worth
than another. I think the merit of Myers-Briggs is that
it gives us a window into discerning how God made
us, and understanding how he may have specifically
endowed us as persons to live as members of one
body.
Myers-Briggs dares not ask us to conclude that
we live in a land far, far away from each other, or
even from the realities of the Biblical narrative!
Rather, it brings the realities of our differences to the
forefront: it shows us the beauty of our differences,
and ought to leave us in wonder of how we, as the
imago Dei, and as temples of the Holy Spirit, could
be so uniquely different, and yet have so much the
same; how God was so creative as to consider how
we would each uniquely use our minds in such a
variety ways.
Myers-Briggs is not a tool that ought to divide
us, or cause us to conclude we could live apart from
the body of Christ; it is a tool which ought to help
us realise how we are uniquely able to contribute to
the body of Christ, as members of one body. This
does not lead us to live in a land far, far away; rather,
it seems to usher us to live in the Christian reality,
which is a land much closer to home. ‫‮‬
GLUTTONY hearts away from idolatrous (or
abusive) food consumption? I
would like to make one humble
suggestion to help us along the way: restoring the
practice of giving thanks. Yes, the most habitually
(and mindlessly) prayed prayer by Christians: that
moment before we eat when we bow our heads
and give thanks to God, the Creator, Sustainer, and
Redeemer of our world. What if we truly meditated
on thanks, for the food, before we ate?
When we are deeply grateful for food, we won’t
abuse it. Or waste it. Or use it as a status symbol, or
let it consume our lives. We will instead cultivate
hearts that celebrate food in it’s rightful place.
Does this mean we should never feast? Absolutely
not; Scripture shows us feasting is a God-ordained
way to party (Revelation 19). But whether we are
feasting or eating a bowl of Tuesday soup, we must
strive to do so with thanksgiving and respect. We
will be sure to avoid gluttony when we treat the food
we eat as a good gift from our Father and learn to
love our neighbors, both the ones sharing our table
and the ones experiencing the effects of our consumption throughout the world. ‫‮‬
continued from page 2
US POLITICS: AN APOLOGY
BY ANDY STROMBERG
In theology-world, I expect many of us
would think of an apology as some sort of a
defense of an ideological system. This isn’t
that. As an American living in Canada, I
genuinely want to say that I’m sorry for the
way this election is playing out on the world
stage.
I should say up front that I’ve never been
particularly political. Although, now that I
think of it, in the 5th grade I was involved
in a mock election at my small-town
elementary school. The main candidates
that year were Bill Clinton, George H.W.
Bush, and Ross Perot. We vied for the right
to be their representatives and in the end I
got the nod to pose for Ross Perot, complete
with a stump speech given to the entire
school over our in-class television sets. My
talking points came from my smartly cynical
father; I can still picture him scribbling out
his political dissents to rouse the masses…
of elementary school kids. Whatever he
wrote, it worked; I’m pretty sure I won or
at least came in second place, which was
miraculous considering I was Ross Perot.
More important and more prominent in
my memory, I built a bit of a bond with
the stand-in for George H.W., a 6th grader
named Amy, who was very cute. She
became my first girlfriend, so ‘92 turned out
to be a pretty good election year for me.
The times have changed just a bit since
then. First off, I’m older and much more
likely to listen to talk radio than I am the
angsty music I was starting to love as a
pre-teen. I’m becoming more engaged and
aware of the part I have to play in modern
political discourse. Secondly, the political
climate has changed dramatically in my
country (and abroad, from what I can
gather). The mood is tense and the stakes are
high. I remember more than a few election
cycles where the political differences
between candidates seemed marginal, and
my parents jokingly talked about having to
pick the lesser of two evils. No one laughs
about that joke these days (unless they’re
making fun of the other side, of course).
Several American candidates seek to
capitalize on deep-rooted fears and prejudices that have brought the very worst of
our culture to light. Perhaps politics always
carries a bit of this flavor. It may well be that
I am simply getting to the age where I am
finally starting to pay attention. Be that as
it may, such partisan vitriol and seemingly
unreasonable prejudice has been painful to
witness. As an American living abroad (just
barely), I feel the sting even more strongly.
So I want to apologize for the flagrant
bigotry of Mr. Trump (among others), and
for all the inflammatory dialogue swirling
about. I know other candidates are not
perfect, but I suspect that, on the whole, their
views are far less insulting than have been
the outspoken words from the GOP leader
as of late.
As a Christian I have no disillusions
about hoping in a single man, woman, or
government to solve the world’s problems.
For full disclosure: in the past I’ve voted
mostly Republican, but am presently
undecided. I’m leaning towards Bernie
Sanders; with his occasionally crazy hair and
fiery emphasis on the marginalized he strikes
me as an endearing and entertaining cross
between an Old Testament prophet and Mr.
Magoo. And, as someone who has enjoyed
the healthcare benefits of living in the Great
White North, I am not so threatened by
his ‘socialism.’ But this is not a political
endorsement for the Democrats, nor is it
just an excuse to take cheap pot-shots at
those who are doing the very difficult work
of leading our country. I write because I
feel like I am watching my country devour
itself on the public stage and I am deeply
disturbed.
I am sorry for the prejudiced and
ignorant political discourse that has been
in the headlines. I am sorry if you have felt
discriminated against or judged by a politically insular American. For those of us at
Regent, I suspect we have come to the place
where we treat one another with much more
respect. If you have been offended, I expect
that you have likely already forgiven the
pride of your American brothers and sisters.
Thank you for believing the best about us at
a time that finds us at our worst.
In light of this present, national division,
I am so very grateful for roots of faith that
bind me to brothers and sisters who look,
think, and believe differently than I do. The
reality of God forces me to look beyond the
borders of my country and my neighbor and
to see good in all that he has created.
My time at Regent, unexpectedly, has
been motivating me to be more political as
an extension of my faith. Not in the sense
of putting my ultimate salvific hope in
government agencies, but in recognizing the
urgent presence of God’s kingdom in this
world, which cannot help but make claims
upon the societal structures of our nations. I
do not claim to know the way forward. But I
think I can at least start with an apology.
The Ross Perot in me still hopes we can
be friends when this all blows over. If you
must know, I have no plans to date ANY
of the current candidates. Although, in an
election year I suppose anything is
possible. ‫‮‬
When learned men begin to use their reason, then I generally discover that they haven’t got any. - G.K. Chesterton
4
1 MARCH 2016 WINTER ISSUE 7
A MODERN TALE
continued from page 2
from him. The same single light illuminates
them both. NAME sits back in his chair, arms
crossed, his gaze lowered. GOMER, her hands
folded on top of the table, is looking at NAME.
GOMER: (Bluntly) You’re in a sour mood.
NAME stays silent, but fidgets in his chair.
GOMER: What happened today?
NAME fidgets again.
NAME: (Quietly) My brother came by to
talk.
GOMER’s face grimaces at the mention of
NAME’s brother.
GOMER: (Softly, worried) What did he have
to say?
NAME never looks up. Silence. After a
minute, GOMER leans back, slowly exhaling
air.
NAME: (Quietly) I’m going to bed.
NAME rises quickly, to leave, knocks his
chair over. His back turned to GOMER, he
pauses as the chair hits the floor. He glances at
it, then exits stage right. GOMER is left staring
after him. She slowly rises, picks up the chair,
pushes it into place under the table, does the
same to her own chair, and facing stage right,
leaning on the back of her chair with one hand,
covers her mouth with the other and sobs
quietly. The lights fade out except for a single
light stays on, center stage. GOMER is still seen
in the background. AMY LO walks into the
light, faces the crowd.
AMY LO: (Vacillating between looking at
her feet in introspection, and looking towards
the crowd, pleadingly) They say stories don’t
exist anymore. Fairy tales are just lies we tell
ourselves for our own sake. I believe them.
(Quickly, pleadingly) Don’t get me wrong, I
want to hear my father’s stories …but… (softly,
to herself) they are just fictions, senseless lies,
meant for children. And I am no child. I am
not even his child. He is a liar, telling lies to a
little girl that isn’t even his own blood. (Turning
to GOMER) And you, you don’t even tell me
stories. All you ever told me was the truth:
do what is necessary to get by; never trust the
other, and not even yourself, because your body
will do whatever it needs to survive in spite
of your conscience; all things are permissible
when life is at stake. (Turning again to the
crowd, melancholy) Stories never teach you
this, because stories are lies. There is always
the way out in stories, the Deus Ex Machina
to solve all problems, the author’s need for
resolution. (To herself now) But our author is
dead. God will stay in his box, and the only way
out is death… if that is even considered an out.
AMY LO turns once more to her mother. The
light fades.
END SCENE
RELATIONSHIIP
FROM THE KITCHEN
BY KASEY KIMBALL
Curried Indian Split Pea Soup
serves 6
1 1/2 C green split peas (dried),
rinsed and drained
1tbsp olive oil
1 onion, finely chopped
2 cloves garlic, pressed or minced
1T fresh ginger, grated
1/2 t turneric
1/2 t curry powder
1/2 t cumin
1.8t cayenne
4 C chicken broth
3 potatoes, cut into 1/2" cubes
Salt and pepper to taste
Optional garnish: cilantro, plain
yogurt, crispy chickpeas (these
are easy to make- just roast
canned chickpeas in the oven
with salt and cumin at 400 until
they're crispy)
Directions:
BY STEVE BERKENPAS
1. Rinse the split peas well under
cold water and drain
2. Heat the oil in a pot over
medium heat. Finely chop the
opnion, add it to the pot, and
sauté, stirring occasionally for
4-5 minutes until translucent.
Add garlic, ginger, spices. Cook
1 minute and stir, Add the peas,
potatoes and broth. Season with
salt and pepper.
3. Bring to a boil, then reduce the
heat and simmer, uncovered, 45
minutes until the peas become
very soft. Adjust the seasoning.
Serve and garnish as you like.
About
Et Cetera
SUBMISSION GUIDELINES
Editor: Ed Smith
Copy Editor: Adrienne Redekopp
Printers: Copiesmart #103 5728 University Blvd
Visual Art: Works submitted in digital format
are preferred. No promises can be made about the
quality of the printing, however: black and white
photographs and line art will reproduce best.
Articles: Maximum Length for all unsolicited articles is
800 words, though shorter articles are welcomed.
• Book, movie, and CD reviews should be no longer than
500 words.
• Letters to the Editor should not exceed 200 words.
• All submissions are subject to editing.
Fiction and Poetry: Et Cetera welcomes
submissions of fiction and poetry. The word limit for
such submissions is 800 words. However, because
editorial revision is more difficult with these
submissions, longer poems and stories may not be
printed the same week they are received.
Anonymous Articles: Approval of anonymous
publication will be granted on a case-by-case basis.
Who Can Submit: Current students, faculty, staff and
spouses are preferred (though exceptions can be made).
How to Submit:
Et Cetera: etcetera@regent-college.edu.
Greensheet: greensheet@regent-college.edu
Et Cetera is published twenty-four times a year by the
Regent College Student Association.
Submissions in Word format are preferred; RTF works
as well. No guarantees are made that a submission will
be printed.
Deadline for submissions for both the Et Cetera and
Greensheet is 4:30pm Thursday of each week.
Views expressed in the Et Cetera do not necessarily
represent the views of Regent College, the Regent College
Student Association, or the Et Cetera staff.
Et Cetera can be viewed on-line at:
www2.regent-college.edu/etcetera