There is a tendency in this age (Lewis states) for us to substitute a negative term for a positive one. I cannot speak for this age; but, I can for myself agree with Lewis. He takes for example the notion of Unselfishness as a virtue replacing Love. To be unselfish is to deny ourselves some good for other's. To Love that other is to do something positive for that other (which may include some self-denial). But, the purpose or intention is totally different and because of that so is the psychological outcome. I may be unselfish with my wife and not do the thing that I wanted to do. She may derive some pleasure from that. In the long-term I will not and will grow bitter. But, if I do something for my wife out of love and she derives pleasure from it, I will derive pleasure from hers and will be acting in love and inherently selflessly.
Interestingly, Lewis points out that we do not suffer from an overactive or too strong sense of desire. God does not want to curb our desires or to weaken them. Instead he wants to repurpose them and strengthen it. "We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased" (Lewis, 109).
I am far too easily pleased, fooling around with all sorts of trivialities. I am that child playing in the mud because I cannot envision the trip to the Ocean that God has offered me. Lord, help me to see the higher things. Take away not my desire, but my ability to be satiated by lesser things than you.
Showing posts with label Lewis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lewis. Show all posts
Sunday, July 2, 2017
Closer to God or Closer to Hell?
Screwtape notes that whether "love, or patriotism, or celibacy, or candles on altars, or teetotalism, or education, are 'good' or 'bad'. Can't you see there's no answer? Nothing matters at all except the tendency of a given state of mind, in given circumstances, to move a particular patient at a particular moment nearer to the Enemy or nearer to us" (Lewis, 106).
It is both very chilling and very calming to realize that nothing in and of itself that I can do is essentially the wrong thing (aside from the obvious sins that I commit). It is chilling because in my moments of strength of mind when I focus hard and actually do some studying of intellectual things that I can be erring if those things are leading me in the opposite direction of God. It is also very calming to thing that if I am in a good state, and in moderation doing something as relaxing and banal as cooking a dinner, or playing FIFA that if I am not moving towards Hell I am ebbing closer to God. It's a double-edged sword. I believe that God allows us relaxation and the chance to do the things we enjoy (for me studying philosophy or creating in the kitchen). But, and I speak fully for myself, if I attend those things at the expense of attending towards God then those things that He has given to me as a way of relaxation or of feeling good doing I am putting a distance between He and I. He is immovable and thus, I am the one backing away. It is important for me to remember that it is God who has given me my interests, hobbies and relaxation moments. At this moment I want to remember that and thank Him for His generosity and to ask Him to remind me or nudge me if I am doing them at such a fervor to neglect the giver for the sake of the gifts.
It is both very chilling and very calming to realize that nothing in and of itself that I can do is essentially the wrong thing (aside from the obvious sins that I commit). It is chilling because in my moments of strength of mind when I focus hard and actually do some studying of intellectual things that I can be erring if those things are leading me in the opposite direction of God. It is also very calming to thing that if I am in a good state, and in moderation doing something as relaxing and banal as cooking a dinner, or playing FIFA that if I am not moving towards Hell I am ebbing closer to God. It's a double-edged sword. I believe that God allows us relaxation and the chance to do the things we enjoy (for me studying philosophy or creating in the kitchen). But, and I speak fully for myself, if I attend those things at the expense of attending towards God then those things that He has given to me as a way of relaxation or of feeling good doing I am putting a distance between He and I. He is immovable and thus, I am the one backing away. It is important for me to remember that it is God who has given me my interests, hobbies and relaxation moments. At this moment I want to remember that and thank Him for His generosity and to ask Him to remind me or nudge me if I am doing them at such a fervor to neglect the giver for the sake of the gifts.
The Essential Vice
Pride or Self-Conceit is the chief vice of creation. "According to Christian teachers, the essential vice, the utmost evil, is Pride. Unchastity, anger, greed, drunkenness, and all that, are mere fleabites in comparison: it was through Pride that the devil became the devil: Pride leads to every other vice: it is the complete anti-God state of mind" (Lewis, 87).
Pride is essentially competitive by nature. The man that is proud of his wealth, his house or his beautiful wife is not actually proud of those things. He is proud that he is wealthier than so-and-so, that his house is the largest on the block and that in his circle of friends his wife is more beautiful than all the others. If everyone were equally rich, with an equally palatial house and equally beautiful wives the proud man would not be proud. The key to ridding oneself of Pride then is remove the competition. Lewis states that the Christian virtue opposed to Pride is Humility. I wonder if it isn't contentment.
Pride never brings two together. Pride always means enmity, enmity between man and man and enmity between man and God. When you get to know God you realize that He is something that is immeasurably superior to yourself in every aspect. If one does not recognize this fact, one does not know God. "As long as you are proud you cannot know God. A proud man is always looking down on things and people: and, of course, as long as you are looking down, you cannot see something that is above you" (Lewis, 90).
"Pride is a spiritual cancer: it eats up the very possibility of love, or contentment, or even common sense" (Lewis, 92). Pride is the primary sin. It requires very little other than the awareness of the self and of God. It then places the self ahead of God. All other sins than flow forth from pride. "It is the fall in every individual life, and in each day of each individual life, the basic sin behind all particular sins: at this very moment you ad I are either committing it, or about to commit it, or repenting it" (Lewis, 104).
Pride is essentially competitive by nature. The man that is proud of his wealth, his house or his beautiful wife is not actually proud of those things. He is proud that he is wealthier than so-and-so, that his house is the largest on the block and that in his circle of friends his wife is more beautiful than all the others. If everyone were equally rich, with an equally palatial house and equally beautiful wives the proud man would not be proud. The key to ridding oneself of Pride then is remove the competition. Lewis states that the Christian virtue opposed to Pride is Humility. I wonder if it isn't contentment.
Pride never brings two together. Pride always means enmity, enmity between man and man and enmity between man and God. When you get to know God you realize that He is something that is immeasurably superior to yourself in every aspect. If one does not recognize this fact, one does not know God. "As long as you are proud you cannot know God. A proud man is always looking down on things and people: and, of course, as long as you are looking down, you cannot see something that is above you" (Lewis, 90).
"Pride is a spiritual cancer: it eats up the very possibility of love, or contentment, or even common sense" (Lewis, 92). Pride is the primary sin. It requires very little other than the awareness of the self and of God. It then places the self ahead of God. All other sins than flow forth from pride. "It is the fall in every individual life, and in each day of each individual life, the basic sin behind all particular sins: at this very moment you ad I are either committing it, or about to commit it, or repenting it" (Lewis, 104).
An interesting take on the problem of evil and free will
Lewis notes that the devil has set himself up as the prince of this world. He also notes that this is either God's will (which would be strange) or it is not God's will (if it is not then how can anything happen that isn't the will of an all powerful God). He uses an interesting analogy to explain this. Take for instance a Mother who wants her children to keep their rooms tidy. However, to teach the children responsibility she isn't going to force them to tidy their rooms every day after supper. Days later she goes up to the room and finds things strewn all across the room and it in disrepair. It is both the will and not the will of the Mother that finds this set of circumstances existent. So it is with God. God desires us to live in accordance with Him and yet He does not force that upon anyone. The same is true in any type of organization. The boss may want something done but sets it up to be done voluntarily. If only half the people do what the boss wants it is both his will and not his will
The Wrath of God
Read any of the comment sections on any article that will elicit arguments (which is nearly every article these days ranging from politics to what type of lunch a celebrity is eating) and soon enough you will come across someone arguing, often from a position of spite, about the Wrath of God. Inevitably you will get a number of responses, the two most common of which are mockery and an argument for an enlightened, merciful God. The first will state something along the lines of, "why believe in a magic man in the sky" or "I can't believe modern men still believe some silly book written 2,000 years ago". These arguments aren't generally worth having in the best of circumstances. Trying to have a sincere discussion about the existence of God through internet commentary is simply a fool's errand. The second type of argument supposes God as being more merciful than the hate-spewing, self-righteous 'explicative deleted' fear and hate-mongerer. These will take the line of, "God is loving and therefore loves all men" or "Jesus never mentioned XYZ, who are you to judge" or "If God were truly an all-loving God he would never punish so-and-so for such-and-such". Arguing these in Internet commentary is as fool-hardy a task. Therefore, I'll go to a much better forum to argue them - an Internet blog.
Reality check - Pinning 95 theses on a church door this is not.
Jokes and humor aside, Lewis illustrates the real cause of this second type of argument perfectly well in his March 5th devotion. When we truly feel a sense of shame about something we have done, when we have exhausted all possible excuses and come to the realization that we have done something wrong then we realize that "our character, as revealed in this action, is, and ought to be, hateful to all good men, and, if there are powers above man, to them. A God who did not regard this with unappeasable distaste would not be a good being" (Lewis, 73). Basically, when we face up to our sinful nature we come to the realization that if there exist an all-good God, that being must necessarily punish us for such wickedness. If He didn't punish such wickedness than there wouldn't be any point in acknowledging such a being because it would be wicked itself. "When we merely say that we are bad, the 'wrath' of God seems a barbarous doctrine; as soon as we perceive our badness, it appears inevitable, a mere corollary from God's goodness" (Lewis, 73). The moment we recognize our sinfulness or our badness we realize that an all-good God must necessarily have wrath against such actions and actors. Recognition of this fact takes us out of the illusory world in which we can say that the wrath of God would be satiated by the love of God. The love of God is a part of his absolute Goodness. Absolute goodness demands goodness in others. When there is badness or sinfulness the Absolute goodness demands wrath. God's wrath and love come from the same place.
Reality check - Pinning 95 theses on a church door this is not.
Jokes and humor aside, Lewis illustrates the real cause of this second type of argument perfectly well in his March 5th devotion. When we truly feel a sense of shame about something we have done, when we have exhausted all possible excuses and come to the realization that we have done something wrong then we realize that "our character, as revealed in this action, is, and ought to be, hateful to all good men, and, if there are powers above man, to them. A God who did not regard this with unappeasable distaste would not be a good being" (Lewis, 73). Basically, when we face up to our sinful nature we come to the realization that if there exist an all-good God, that being must necessarily punish us for such wickedness. If He didn't punish such wickedness than there wouldn't be any point in acknowledging such a being because it would be wicked itself. "When we merely say that we are bad, the 'wrath' of God seems a barbarous doctrine; as soon as we perceive our badness, it appears inevitable, a mere corollary from God's goodness" (Lewis, 73). The moment we recognize our sinfulness or our badness we realize that an all-good God must necessarily have wrath against such actions and actors. Recognition of this fact takes us out of the illusory world in which we can say that the wrath of God would be satiated by the love of God. The love of God is a part of his absolute Goodness. Absolute goodness demands goodness in others. When there is badness or sinfulness the Absolute goodness demands wrath. God's wrath and love come from the same place.
Morality in C.S. Lewis
There are two ways in which a human being can go wrong
1) Either drifting apart or colliding with another human being to cause damage
2) Either drifting away from or having one's own desires come into conflict with one another
If both of these are avoided however, there still needs to be a destination in mind. There must needs be a final end to human life.
Morality is a three pronged thing:
1) Living in peace with other individuals
2) Fixing the inside (virtues or vices) of each individual
3) "The general purpose of human life as a whole: what man was made for" (Lewis, 70)
1) Either drifting apart or colliding with another human being to cause damage
2) Either drifting away from or having one's own desires come into conflict with one another
If both of these are avoided however, there still needs to be a destination in mind. There must needs be a final end to human life.
Morality is a three pronged thing:
1) Living in peace with other individuals
2) Fixing the inside (virtues or vices) of each individual
3) "The general purpose of human life as a whole: what man was made for" (Lewis, 70)
The Holiness of God is More than Moral Perfection
Lewis states that the Holiness of God is more than and something other than moral perfection and that his call to us is something more than moral duty. That however, is not an excuse for us to not act in a moral way. He notes that the Law is insufficient and meant to be transcended. However, he states that the Law can only be transcended by those who have tried to live up to it and realized how utterly inept one is to living out its precepts. Basically, in order to transcend morals, one has to truly try to live morally and fail, reach out to God and through God one will transcend the thou shall and thou shall not legalism of moral duty. Of course, Lewis puts it ever so elegantly stating, "The road to the promised land runs past Sinai" (Lewis, 65).
Lewis - Objective Right and Wrong
There is a real right and a real wrong. Lewis calls this the Law of Nature. He states that every man and every nation believes this - even if they are mistaken about what the real right or real wrong actually is. His evidence is the fact that while many men or nations may state that there is no objective right and wrong, the moment which they feel wronged they undercut their arguments against a real right and wrong. Likewise, he states that the very fact that we make excuses for when we have acted wrongly (or we have acted in a way that other's perceive as wronging them) proves that everyone believes in a real right and wrong. If they didn't have such a belief they would not feel the need to excuse away behavior.
Catching up with CS Lewis (again)
I'm terrible at this daily reading thing. I'm on my A Year with C.S. Lewis kick again. It's July 2 and I'm only on February 23. I probably won't catch up today. But we're going to get closer to being on track.
Lewis notes that the Original Sin that our remote ancestors committed wasn't something sexual in nature. In fact he suggests that the corrupt sinful nature we have now is a direct result of the fall. The Original Sin was related to the danger of the self. We sin when we place our self above God. Essentially, the whole of human history and all of its issues are on account of misplacing our priorities. "All that we call human history - money, poverty, ambition, war, prostitution, classes, empires, slavery - the long terrible story of man trying to find something other than God which will make him happy" (Lewis, 59).
Basically, what Lewis is stating is that our Original Sin was substituting our self for God, trading true happiness for something temporary and fleeting. Lewis terms this the turning from God to self. In turning from God to self, the original sin is the creature denying and acting on that denial of the creatures true position in the created order. Lewis calls this turning from God to self the 'self-will'. It is a danger inherent to creatures with Free Will. Lewis remarks that God chose, in His wisdom, to create the world as such - it was a risk that God apparently thought worth taking. In Screwtape Letters the demon writes, "When He [God] talks of their losing their selves, He only means abandoning the glamour of self-will; once they have done that, He really gives them back all their personality, and boasts (I am afraid, sincerely) that when they are wholly His they will be more themselves than ever" (Lewis, 61).
In committing the Original Sin (and whenever we place ourselves above God) we turn to self-will. That self-will is a direct contradiction to the purposes we were created for. As Screwtape says, when we deny the self-will, and surrender our wills to His, we become more ourselves than ever.
Lewis notes that the Original Sin that our remote ancestors committed wasn't something sexual in nature. In fact he suggests that the corrupt sinful nature we have now is a direct result of the fall. The Original Sin was related to the danger of the self. We sin when we place our self above God. Essentially, the whole of human history and all of its issues are on account of misplacing our priorities. "All that we call human history - money, poverty, ambition, war, prostitution, classes, empires, slavery - the long terrible story of man trying to find something other than God which will make him happy" (Lewis, 59).
Basically, what Lewis is stating is that our Original Sin was substituting our self for God, trading true happiness for something temporary and fleeting. Lewis terms this the turning from God to self. In turning from God to self, the original sin is the creature denying and acting on that denial of the creatures true position in the created order. Lewis calls this turning from God to self the 'self-will'. It is a danger inherent to creatures with Free Will. Lewis remarks that God chose, in His wisdom, to create the world as such - it was a risk that God apparently thought worth taking. In Screwtape Letters the demon writes, "When He [God] talks of their losing their selves, He only means abandoning the glamour of self-will; once they have done that, He really gives them back all their personality, and boasts (I am afraid, sincerely) that when they are wholly His they will be more themselves than ever" (Lewis, 61).
In committing the Original Sin (and whenever we place ourselves above God) we turn to self-will. That self-will is a direct contradiction to the purposes we were created for. As Screwtape says, when we deny the self-will, and surrender our wills to His, we become more ourselves than ever.
Wednesday, June 28, 2017
The Screwtape Letters
I just finished The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis for the first time as an adult. This is what I wrote in my Goodreads blurb: "Lewis is a wonderful read anytime of the day. That he can pack so much sound theology, care for his fellow man and relevant Biblical principles into a satire from a demon's point of view shows what a gifted writer he was. I think I read this when I was a child the last time (pre-high school). At that point I hadn't been faced with or succumbed to so many temptations. Now in my early 30s I understand the temptations and barbs out there. As a Christian it's easy enough not to commit most of the "big" ones; but, the more nuanced temptations to despair, or self-righteousness or "Christianity and ___" have often overcome me. This book came along to me at a fairly low time in both my spiritual and temporal life. It's not a fix all of course; but, it was a pick me up, slap me around and point me back in the right direction. Hopefully I'll be smart enough to keep heading in that way".
Some of the best parts of the book are the more nuanced sins we as humans can fall to. It's eye opening to say the least. In letter XXV Screwtape writes "The real trouble about the set your patient is living is that it is merely Christian...What we want, if men become Christians at all, is to keep them in the state of mind I call 'Christianity and'. You know - Christianity and the Crisis, Christianity and the New Psychology, Christianity and the New Order, Christianity and Faith Healing, Christianity and Psychical Research, Christianity and Vegetarianism, Christianity and Spelling Reform. If they must be Christians let them at least be Christians with a difference. Substitute for the faith itself some Fashion with a Christian colouring. Work on their horror of the Same Old Thing" (Lewis, 117).
There are two major things packed into here. First, it's a very pertinent thing to current events (and current events throughout the history of politics). Every election cycle we get to the point that I wonder if Christianity has been turned into the sub-category of some cause to be elected. Without beating a dead horse the farcical speech that President Trump gave at Liberty University is case-in-point of when Christianity has been used as a means and not the end itself. President Trump has been the punching bag from every political side. I'm not going to continue that trend. The only difference between Trump and most other modern politicians is how blatantly he donned Christianity for political purposes. Second, there is the horror of the Same Old Thing.
Throughout the book Screwtape instructs Wormwood to instill the fear of the Same Old Thing. This hits me more on a personal level than a theological one. I struggle heavily with this fear. I get easily bored and that's when I do stupid things. I fear the monotony of daily life. This leads into the next and final passage I'll share here. "But, if only he can be kept alive, you have time itself for your ally. The long, dull monotonous years of middle-aged prosperity or middle-aged adversity are excellent campaigning weather. You see, it is so hard for these creates to persevere" (Lewis, 130). How true that is! "The routine of adversity, the gradual decay of youthful loves and youthful hope, the quest despair (hardly felt as pain) of ever overcoming the chronic temptations with which we create in their lives and the inarticulate resentment with which we teach them to respond to it - all this provides admirable opportunities of wearing out a soul by attrition" (Lewis, 130). I am certainly neither as eloquent nor as learned as Lewis. I'll add nothing to this other than to hold my hand up and say, I know this feeling. But even in this season of self-inflicted trouble, or especially because of it, I am trying not to hit despair. Therefore, I won't end on that note. I'll end on a hope to persevere.
Hebrews 12:1-3
"Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. Consider him who endured such opposition from sinners, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart".
This is my prayer today. I am surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses. Lord, help me to throw off that which hinders me and the sin that has already entangled me. Give me the clarity to run the race and helped me to fix my eyes on Jesus. Let me consider Him so that I am no longer weary and my heart can be made anew.
Some of the best parts of the book are the more nuanced sins we as humans can fall to. It's eye opening to say the least. In letter XXV Screwtape writes "The real trouble about the set your patient is living is that it is merely Christian...What we want, if men become Christians at all, is to keep them in the state of mind I call 'Christianity and'. You know - Christianity and the Crisis, Christianity and the New Psychology, Christianity and the New Order, Christianity and Faith Healing, Christianity and Psychical Research, Christianity and Vegetarianism, Christianity and Spelling Reform. If they must be Christians let them at least be Christians with a difference. Substitute for the faith itself some Fashion with a Christian colouring. Work on their horror of the Same Old Thing" (Lewis, 117).
There are two major things packed into here. First, it's a very pertinent thing to current events (and current events throughout the history of politics). Every election cycle we get to the point that I wonder if Christianity has been turned into the sub-category of some cause to be elected. Without beating a dead horse the farcical speech that President Trump gave at Liberty University is case-in-point of when Christianity has been used as a means and not the end itself. President Trump has been the punching bag from every political side. I'm not going to continue that trend. The only difference between Trump and most other modern politicians is how blatantly he donned Christianity for political purposes. Second, there is the horror of the Same Old Thing.
Throughout the book Screwtape instructs Wormwood to instill the fear of the Same Old Thing. This hits me more on a personal level than a theological one. I struggle heavily with this fear. I get easily bored and that's when I do stupid things. I fear the monotony of daily life. This leads into the next and final passage I'll share here. "But, if only he can be kept alive, you have time itself for your ally. The long, dull monotonous years of middle-aged prosperity or middle-aged adversity are excellent campaigning weather. You see, it is so hard for these creates to persevere" (Lewis, 130). How true that is! "The routine of adversity, the gradual decay of youthful loves and youthful hope, the quest despair (hardly felt as pain) of ever overcoming the chronic temptations with which we create in their lives and the inarticulate resentment with which we teach them to respond to it - all this provides admirable opportunities of wearing out a soul by attrition" (Lewis, 130). I am certainly neither as eloquent nor as learned as Lewis. I'll add nothing to this other than to hold my hand up and say, I know this feeling. But even in this season of self-inflicted trouble, or especially because of it, I am trying not to hit despair. Therefore, I won't end on that note. I'll end on a hope to persevere.
Hebrews 12:1-3
"Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. Consider him who endured such opposition from sinners, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart".
This is my prayer today. I am surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses. Lord, help me to throw off that which hinders me and the sin that has already entangled me. Give me the clarity to run the race and helped me to fix my eyes on Jesus. Let me consider Him so that I am no longer weary and my heart can be made anew.
Sunday, March 5, 2017
God is the gasoline
Lewis makes a great analogy in Mere Christianity. He states that God made us, like we made automobiles. We designed cars to run on gasoline (or diesel). God designed us to run on Himself. "He Himself is the fuel our spirits were designed to burn, or the food our spirits were designed to feed on. There is no other". Lewis points out that when we try to make ourselves happy in any other way we are doomed to failure. We can't get true happiness apart from God. God is the gasoline that makes us go.
Jesus' teachings as political policy
"The second thing to get clear is that Christianity has not, and does not profess to have, a detailed political programme for applying 'Do as you would be done by' to a particular society at a particular moment. It could not have. It is meant for all men at all times and the particular programme which suited one place or time would not suit another. And, anyhow, that is not how Christianity works. When it tells you to feed the hungry it does not give you lessons in cookery. When it tells you to read the Scriptures it does not give you lessons in Hebrew and Greek, or even in English grammar. It was never intended to replace or supersede the ordinary human arts and science: it is rather a director which will set them all to the right jobs, and a source of energy which will give them all new life, if only they will put themselves at its disposal" (Lewis, Mere Christianity).
I think in the course of this blog it is becoming clear that I am somewhat disgusted by the politicization of Christianity in the current state of affairs in the US. We have a leader, who uses Christianity as a way of garnering votes and favor. That is nothing new or even worse than others have done in the past. His reading of Two Corinthians only showed that he is less comfortable with using the language of Christians to win political favor with them than past politicians. What is worse and a more dangerous situation are the Christian politicization of their faiths. When you try to shoehorn your faith to fit in a box, be it socialism, liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism, etc., you are trying to put in a relationship with the infinite into a finite container. It's just not going to work. You're going to have to peel off a bit here, trim off a bit there to make it work. It isn't even like putting a square peg into a round hole - it's like trying to put the thing with the holes into the square peg. It just doesn't work and the results are divisive inside the Church.
The divisiveness in American politics has seeped into the American conscious so ravenously we can't have polite conversations about anything meaningful. That's sad. It's bad for the country as a whole because it's going to stagnate the country and most of its population. Divisiveness in the Church is far worse. It's going directly against Scripture:
1 Corinthians 1:10: "I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought"
Romans 12:16 "Live in harmony with one another"
Galatians 5:26 "Let us not become boastful, challenging one another, envying one another"
I'm not saying that there won't be political disagreements between Christians. There will be because each side has elements that mesh with our Christian faith. Each side has things that are not exactly lined up with Christianity. Furthermore, the art of government has things that must be done that have absolutely nothing to do with our faith in God. Agree with one another on the things of God and the other stuff won't matter. The side that wins in an election should not be boastful. Don't challenge one another on everything. That's the way of the world. We're not supposed to be in the world.
Galatians 5:15 "If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other"
We are going to destroy one another in the Church if we get to wrapped up in politics. People living in a modern state are going to have disagreements on what that Modern State should look like. The Modern State is pretty damn complex with thousands upon thousands of issues that could and are debated. But, if we as Christians keep on biting at each other, we're going to destroy ourselves. If we bicker like non-Christians do among ourselves then we are being controlled by the sin nature; we are living just like the people of the world (One Corinthians 3:3). If we can't come to an agreement on everything in the political realm that's ok, so long as we come to live in harmony with one another and agree on the salvation through Christ Jesus. If we can't speak about politics in a peaceful and harmonious way with one another then we ought to just cut political discussions out of the Church. Let's listen to the Proverbs.
Proverbs 17:14 "Starting a quarrel is like opening a floodgate, so stop before a dispute breaks out"
I think in the course of this blog it is becoming clear that I am somewhat disgusted by the politicization of Christianity in the current state of affairs in the US. We have a leader, who uses Christianity as a way of garnering votes and favor. That is nothing new or even worse than others have done in the past. His reading of Two Corinthians only showed that he is less comfortable with using the language of Christians to win political favor with them than past politicians. What is worse and a more dangerous situation are the Christian politicization of their faiths. When you try to shoehorn your faith to fit in a box, be it socialism, liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism, etc., you are trying to put in a relationship with the infinite into a finite container. It's just not going to work. You're going to have to peel off a bit here, trim off a bit there to make it work. It isn't even like putting a square peg into a round hole - it's like trying to put the thing with the holes into the square peg. It just doesn't work and the results are divisive inside the Church.
The divisiveness in American politics has seeped into the American conscious so ravenously we can't have polite conversations about anything meaningful. That's sad. It's bad for the country as a whole because it's going to stagnate the country and most of its population. Divisiveness in the Church is far worse. It's going directly against Scripture:
1 Corinthians 1:10: "I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought"
Romans 12:16 "Live in harmony with one another"
Galatians 5:26 "Let us not become boastful, challenging one another, envying one another"
I'm not saying that there won't be political disagreements between Christians. There will be because each side has elements that mesh with our Christian faith. Each side has things that are not exactly lined up with Christianity. Furthermore, the art of government has things that must be done that have absolutely nothing to do with our faith in God. Agree with one another on the things of God and the other stuff won't matter. The side that wins in an election should not be boastful. Don't challenge one another on everything. That's the way of the world. We're not supposed to be in the world.
Galatians 5:15 "If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other"
We are going to destroy one another in the Church if we get to wrapped up in politics. People living in a modern state are going to have disagreements on what that Modern State should look like. The Modern State is pretty damn complex with thousands upon thousands of issues that could and are debated. But, if we as Christians keep on biting at each other, we're going to destroy ourselves. If we bicker like non-Christians do among ourselves then we are being controlled by the sin nature; we are living just like the people of the world (One Corinthians 3:3). If we can't come to an agreement on everything in the political realm that's ok, so long as we come to live in harmony with one another and agree on the salvation through Christ Jesus. If we can't speak about politics in a peaceful and harmonious way with one another then we ought to just cut political discussions out of the Church. Let's listen to the Proverbs.
Proverbs 17:14 "Starting a quarrel is like opening a floodgate, so stop before a dispute breaks out"
More catching up with Lewis
The entire thing that Christianity offers is to become a little Christ. "The whole purpose of becoming a Christian is simply nothing else" (Lewis, Mere Christianity). In this way we can become sons of God, share in the kind of life that Jesus had and share in the glory that the Father has set up for him.
Jesus calls himself humble and meek. But, some of his claims, like, "your sins are forgiven" are not humble or meek at all if they come from a mere man. But, because Jesus is God, the act of forgiving sins, rather than punishing them is a testament to his humility and meekness.
Lewis has no time for people that allow for Jesus to be merely a great moral teacher. "Let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. he has not left that open to us. He did not intend to" (Lewis, Mere Christianity).
If Jesus was just a moral teacher than he is not special. If we took Jesus' advice and set up the world based on it we would live in a happier world. But, that would be true if we took up Plato's, Aristotle's or even Confucius' advice. "If Christianity only means one more bit of good advice, then Christianity is of no importance. There has been no lack of good advice for the last four thousand years. A bit more makes no difference" (Lewis, Mere Christianity).
Jesus taught the Golden Rule of the New Testament - do as you would to others as you would do to you. It's not new coming from Jesus. It's not even new coming from Christianity. Really, as all great moral teachers do, Jesus is pointing out something that we all know already deep in our being what is the right thing to do. Just because Jesus is proclaiming something we already know doesn't negate his message.
Jesus calls himself humble and meek. But, some of his claims, like, "your sins are forgiven" are not humble or meek at all if they come from a mere man. But, because Jesus is God, the act of forgiving sins, rather than punishing them is a testament to his humility and meekness.
Lewis has no time for people that allow for Jesus to be merely a great moral teacher. "Let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. he has not left that open to us. He did not intend to" (Lewis, Mere Christianity).
If Jesus was just a moral teacher than he is not special. If we took Jesus' advice and set up the world based on it we would live in a happier world. But, that would be true if we took up Plato's, Aristotle's or even Confucius' advice. "If Christianity only means one more bit of good advice, then Christianity is of no importance. There has been no lack of good advice for the last four thousand years. A bit more makes no difference" (Lewis, Mere Christianity).
Jesus taught the Golden Rule of the New Testament - do as you would to others as you would do to you. It's not new coming from Jesus. It's not even new coming from Christianity. Really, as all great moral teachers do, Jesus is pointing out something that we all know already deep in our being what is the right thing to do. Just because Jesus is proclaiming something we already know doesn't negate his message.
Saturday, March 4, 2017
An obvious fact made clear
Still playing a little catch up on Lewis - sorry for the back-to-back nature of these posts.
In order to experience God we are going to have to get into that dance between the Trinity. We are going to have to participate to experience God. Lewis likens it to fire and warmth; or, he likens it to getting wet and water. If we want to get warm, we have to stand by the fire. If we want to get wet, we have to jump in the water. "If you want joy, power, peace, eternal life, you must get close to, or even into, the thing that has them" (Lewis, Mere Christianity).
I find the Trinity very difficult to describe. Lewis claims to have this problem as well. But, Lewis also seems to be able to encapsulate some of what the Trinity is from time to time with strong metaphors. "They are a great fountain of energy and beauty spurting up at the very centre of reality" (Lewis, Mere Christianity).
This post ends with a profound statement: "Once a man is united to God, how could he not live forever? Once a man is separated from God, what can he do but wither and die?" (Lewis, 47). If we take the Bible seriously about who God is then accepting Christ and being united to God means that we will live forever - that's a promise. What Lewis is pointing out is that if you tap into God it should be obvious that you're going to live forever because he is the very muchness of life. The opposite is then obviously true as well. If you aren't tapping in to the very muchness of life then how can you accept what Lewis is pointing out.
In order to experience God we are going to have to get into that dance between the Trinity. We are going to have to participate to experience God. Lewis likens it to fire and warmth; or, he likens it to getting wet and water. If we want to get warm, we have to stand by the fire. If we want to get wet, we have to jump in the water. "If you want joy, power, peace, eternal life, you must get close to, or even into, the thing that has them" (Lewis, Mere Christianity).
I find the Trinity very difficult to describe. Lewis claims to have this problem as well. But, Lewis also seems to be able to encapsulate some of what the Trinity is from time to time with strong metaphors. "They are a great fountain of energy and beauty spurting up at the very centre of reality" (Lewis, Mere Christianity).
This post ends with a profound statement: "Once a man is united to God, how could he not live forever? Once a man is separated from God, what can he do but wither and die?" (Lewis, 47). If we take the Bible seriously about who God is then accepting Christ and being united to God means that we will live forever - that's a promise. What Lewis is pointing out is that if you tap into God it should be obvious that you're going to live forever because he is the very muchness of life. The opposite is then obviously true as well. If you aren't tapping in to the very muchness of life then how can you accept what Lewis is pointing out.
Lewis on equality
Lewis has an interesting idea on the notion of equality:
"It is idle to say that men are of equal value. If value is taken in a worldly sense - if we mean that all men are equally useful or beautiful or good or entertaining - then it is nonsense. If it means that all are of equal value as immortal souls, then I think it conceals a dangerous error. The infinite value of each human soul is not a Christian doctrine" (Lewis, The Weight of Glory).
"If there is equality, it is in His love, not in us" (Lewis, The Weight of Glory).
Let that sink in a moment. Lewis is claiming that if there is equality among human beings it is only that God loves us - all other equality is illusory. Not only that, he delights in inequality.
"As democracy becomes more complete in the outer world and opportunities for reverence are successively removed, the refreshment, the cleansing, and invigorating returns to inequality, which the Church offers us, become more and more necessary" (Lewis, ibid).
I'm not really sure what to make of this passage and I probably should read The Weight of Glory in full to give this context. But, I'm becoming increasingly convinced that there is something fundamental in the make-up of the United States that is incredibly at odds with Christianity and we have tried to shoehorn the one into the other. Maybe it's the notion of democracy.
"It is idle to say that men are of equal value. If value is taken in a worldly sense - if we mean that all men are equally useful or beautiful or good or entertaining - then it is nonsense. If it means that all are of equal value as immortal souls, then I think it conceals a dangerous error. The infinite value of each human soul is not a Christian doctrine" (Lewis, The Weight of Glory).
"If there is equality, it is in His love, not in us" (Lewis, The Weight of Glory).
Let that sink in a moment. Lewis is claiming that if there is equality among human beings it is only that God loves us - all other equality is illusory. Not only that, he delights in inequality.
"As democracy becomes more complete in the outer world and opportunities for reverence are successively removed, the refreshment, the cleansing, and invigorating returns to inequality, which the Church offers us, become more and more necessary" (Lewis, ibid).
I'm not really sure what to make of this passage and I probably should read The Weight of Glory in full to give this context. But, I'm becoming increasingly convinced that there is something fundamental in the make-up of the United States that is incredibly at odds with Christianity and we have tried to shoehorn the one into the other. Maybe it's the notion of democracy.
Wednesday, March 1, 2017
The Historical Jesus and The Political Jesus
I'm still playing catch up on my C.S. Lewis devotions, but I'm getting closer (only 20 days behind now...).
On two days in February the book references The Screwtape Letters and makes some pretty interesting points about the Historical Jesus and the commingling of Christianity and politics. On the former Lewis points out that what we know of the historical Jesus comes from one and only one source, the New Testament. Apart from that anything else is just conjecture and can be distorting to the message of the Scriptures. The demons in Screwtape are suggesting that they change the notion of what the historical Jesus is like every thirty years or so to match the age that is envisioning this historically more accurate Jesus. In the generations before Lewis they are seeing the historical Jesus as being a champion of liberal and humanitarian causes. In Lewis' time Jesus was being envisioned in a Marxist light. Because what we know of the historical Jesus comes from the Scriptures any reconstruction of a historical Jesus becomes very unhistorical very quickly. While Jesus probably would have championed some liberal and humanitarian causes and was as revolutionary as Marx was, any thesis stating that this was the message of the historical Jesus is a perversion of what the Jesus of the Scriptures taught. This is not only wrongheaded, it is dangerous for the spiritual well-being of the individual. Lewis writes, as the demonic voice, "The advantages of these constructions, which we intend to change every thirty years or so, are manifold. In the first place they all tend to direct men's devotion to something which does not exist" (Lewis, The Screwtape Letters). As Christians our duty is to become Christlike - to become like the Jesus of the Scriptures. By reconstructing an historical Jesus from extra-biblical sources we run the risk of trying to emulate something that doesn't exist and stunt our walk with the real Jesus Christ.
The political aspect Lewis writes about is very interesting to me mainly because of the nightmare political situation we in America have been living for the past year and a half (and I fear there will be no end in sight). Some Christians think President Trump was the only choice that Christians could make while others thought President Trump was the only choice that Christians could not make. Honestly, I don't think it mattered in the sense of how your Christian faith is concerned. Neither American conservatism nor its liberalism has a completely synchronized view with the Scriptures. But, that isn't what I'm writing about today. What I'm writing about is the distraction that politics plays in the Christian life.
Lewis notes that the demons would certainly fear a true coalescence of Christian faith and governance because it would mean the establishment of a truly just and truly godly society. But, they do want "and want very much, to make men treat Christianity as a means; preferably, of course, as a means to their own advancement, but, failing that, as a means to anything - even social justice" (Lewis, 45). Much of the haranguing and bickering and nastiness surrounding the Christian embracement or rejection of President Trump has had the effect of making Christianity the means to something. President Trump himself is using Christianity as a means to his ends. I think it is perfectly reasonable for two devoted Christians to have entirely different ideas on how America ought to be governed. I think it is perfectly impossible to have this much animosity towards fellow Christians if Christianity is being seen as the ends of our walk in this political atmosphere.
Our faith necessarily must guide our political beliefs. And because Christianity was not designed as a political system for the governance of the United States and neither the current Republican platform nor the current Democratic platform (nor the historical platforms of either party, the Green Party, the Libertarians, the Socialists, the Communists, the Federalists, the Constitutionalists, the Progressives, the No-Nothings, the Populist party of Maryland, the Tea Party, the Secessionists, the Whigs or, and this is especially important, the Founding Fathers of the United States) were solely derived out of Scriptural context they are not going to be perfectly mirrored. Christianity is the vehicle through which God reached down to man to offer him salvation. The political agenda of party x, y or z is the vehicle in which the ideas of how a nation ought to be governed. The mission and scope of these two things are drastically different. There will, of course, be overlapping between them because things like caring for the poor, the widows and the needy are both tenants of Christianity and the function of Government. There will also be overlap with things like theft, murder, and other things we are not to do as Christians and things that are illegal to do. But, the fact of the matter is there are plenty of things that do not overlap. Whether the government mandates that everyone purchase healthcare or decides to have a massive tax break for the wealthy fall clearly outside the scope of Christian theology.
It is my strong belief that the Christian can decide that their understanding of God's call to take care of the needy informs them to elect someone who favors universal healthcare. Their faith in the Scriptures can inform their political belief. It is my strong belief that the Christian can decide that it is their duty and not the duty of the government to take care of the needy and are inclined to vote for somebody that doesn't believe in universal health care provided by the state. Their faith in the Scriptures also informs their political belief. It is my even stronger belief that those two Christians can have political disagreement without the toxic environment that is currently suffocating the United States and causing strife between Christians if both these Christians are treating their faith as the ends instead of some kind of means to fulfilling their political vision for the United States.
On two days in February the book references The Screwtape Letters and makes some pretty interesting points about the Historical Jesus and the commingling of Christianity and politics. On the former Lewis points out that what we know of the historical Jesus comes from one and only one source, the New Testament. Apart from that anything else is just conjecture and can be distorting to the message of the Scriptures. The demons in Screwtape are suggesting that they change the notion of what the historical Jesus is like every thirty years or so to match the age that is envisioning this historically more accurate Jesus. In the generations before Lewis they are seeing the historical Jesus as being a champion of liberal and humanitarian causes. In Lewis' time Jesus was being envisioned in a Marxist light. Because what we know of the historical Jesus comes from the Scriptures any reconstruction of a historical Jesus becomes very unhistorical very quickly. While Jesus probably would have championed some liberal and humanitarian causes and was as revolutionary as Marx was, any thesis stating that this was the message of the historical Jesus is a perversion of what the Jesus of the Scriptures taught. This is not only wrongheaded, it is dangerous for the spiritual well-being of the individual. Lewis writes, as the demonic voice, "The advantages of these constructions, which we intend to change every thirty years or so, are manifold. In the first place they all tend to direct men's devotion to something which does not exist" (Lewis, The Screwtape Letters). As Christians our duty is to become Christlike - to become like the Jesus of the Scriptures. By reconstructing an historical Jesus from extra-biblical sources we run the risk of trying to emulate something that doesn't exist and stunt our walk with the real Jesus Christ.
The political aspect Lewis writes about is very interesting to me mainly because of the nightmare political situation we in America have been living for the past year and a half (and I fear there will be no end in sight). Some Christians think President Trump was the only choice that Christians could make while others thought President Trump was the only choice that Christians could not make. Honestly, I don't think it mattered in the sense of how your Christian faith is concerned. Neither American conservatism nor its liberalism has a completely synchronized view with the Scriptures. But, that isn't what I'm writing about today. What I'm writing about is the distraction that politics plays in the Christian life.
Lewis notes that the demons would certainly fear a true coalescence of Christian faith and governance because it would mean the establishment of a truly just and truly godly society. But, they do want "and want very much, to make men treat Christianity as a means; preferably, of course, as a means to their own advancement, but, failing that, as a means to anything - even social justice" (Lewis, 45). Much of the haranguing and bickering and nastiness surrounding the Christian embracement or rejection of President Trump has had the effect of making Christianity the means to something. President Trump himself is using Christianity as a means to his ends. I think it is perfectly reasonable for two devoted Christians to have entirely different ideas on how America ought to be governed. I think it is perfectly impossible to have this much animosity towards fellow Christians if Christianity is being seen as the ends of our walk in this political atmosphere.
Our faith necessarily must guide our political beliefs. And because Christianity was not designed as a political system for the governance of the United States and neither the current Republican platform nor the current Democratic platform (nor the historical platforms of either party, the Green Party, the Libertarians, the Socialists, the Communists, the Federalists, the Constitutionalists, the Progressives, the No-Nothings, the Populist party of Maryland, the Tea Party, the Secessionists, the Whigs or, and this is especially important, the Founding Fathers of the United States) were solely derived out of Scriptural context they are not going to be perfectly mirrored. Christianity is the vehicle through which God reached down to man to offer him salvation. The political agenda of party x, y or z is the vehicle in which the ideas of how a nation ought to be governed. The mission and scope of these two things are drastically different. There will, of course, be overlapping between them because things like caring for the poor, the widows and the needy are both tenants of Christianity and the function of Government. There will also be overlap with things like theft, murder, and other things we are not to do as Christians and things that are illegal to do. But, the fact of the matter is there are plenty of things that do not overlap. Whether the government mandates that everyone purchase healthcare or decides to have a massive tax break for the wealthy fall clearly outside the scope of Christian theology.
It is my strong belief that the Christian can decide that their understanding of God's call to take care of the needy informs them to elect someone who favors universal healthcare. Their faith in the Scriptures can inform their political belief. It is my strong belief that the Christian can decide that it is their duty and not the duty of the government to take care of the needy and are inclined to vote for somebody that doesn't believe in universal health care provided by the state. Their faith in the Scriptures also informs their political belief. It is my even stronger belief that those two Christians can have political disagreement without the toxic environment that is currently suffocating the United States and causing strife between Christians if both these Christians are treating their faith as the ends instead of some kind of means to fulfilling their political vision for the United States.
Tuesday, February 28, 2017
Some thoughts on the Trinity
Lewis makes some interesting and unique points on the trinity at the center of the Christian faith.
First, he points out that God is love. Many people, even non-Christians love to claim that God is love. In reality however, they are making the claim that love is God - whenever, however and to whatever end, when love arises in man we ought to regard that as sacrosanct and adore it. The Christian claim that God is love is vastly different than the world's same vapid pronouncement. When a Christian claims God is love, the Christian is claiming that a "dynamic activity of love has been going on in God forever and has created everything else" (Lewis, 41).
Second, by pointing out that God is love he notes that God must at least be two persons. If He were only one person, then He would not have been love prior to creation. The fact that God is love is evidence for at least a two-personed God, and in the case of Christianity, a triune one.
He makes an interesting point about the Father and the Son. The New Testament paints a good picture of the relationship between the Father and the Son. It is clear and gives a good idea of what that relationship is. When we try to go further and give more in depth we struggle because we end up painting a picture of two separate things rather than one thing with two persons. "Naturally God knows how to describe Himself much better than we know how to describe Him" (Lewis, Mere Christianity).
Lewis calls the Son, "the self-expression of the Father". He states that relationship between God the Father and Jesus the son is simple, "The Father delights in His Son; the Son looks up to His Father" (Lewis, Mere Christianity).
On the subject of the Holy Spirit, Lewis makes a startling analogy. When you get a group of individuals together like a family or a club you hear people talk about the 'spirit' of that family or club. That spirit is a naturally developed way of talking, a developed way of behaving and other qualities that wouldn't have developed had not it been for that union of individuals. The spirit of the family or club is like another member. Of course, it is not a real entity in the case of the family or club. But the union of Father and Son in love creates a Spirit and because Father and Son is God that Spirit is a real entity and the third person of the Trinity.
I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this analogy. On the one hand it's a good description of the Spirit. But on the other hand, it almost makes it seem like the Spirit is a created being. I'm on the fence about this one.
"If you think of the Father as something 'out there', in front of you, and the Son as someone standing at your side, helping you to pray, trying to turn you into another son, then you have to think of the third Person as something inside you, or behind you" (Lewis, Mere Christianity). Because the Holy Spirit works from inside you or behind you, he is harder to understand, harder to pin down.
First, he points out that God is love. Many people, even non-Christians love to claim that God is love. In reality however, they are making the claim that love is God - whenever, however and to whatever end, when love arises in man we ought to regard that as sacrosanct and adore it. The Christian claim that God is love is vastly different than the world's same vapid pronouncement. When a Christian claims God is love, the Christian is claiming that a "dynamic activity of love has been going on in God forever and has created everything else" (Lewis, 41).
Second, by pointing out that God is love he notes that God must at least be two persons. If He were only one person, then He would not have been love prior to creation. The fact that God is love is evidence for at least a two-personed God, and in the case of Christianity, a triune one.
He makes an interesting point about the Father and the Son. The New Testament paints a good picture of the relationship between the Father and the Son. It is clear and gives a good idea of what that relationship is. When we try to go further and give more in depth we struggle because we end up painting a picture of two separate things rather than one thing with two persons. "Naturally God knows how to describe Himself much better than we know how to describe Him" (Lewis, Mere Christianity).
Lewis calls the Son, "the self-expression of the Father". He states that relationship between God the Father and Jesus the son is simple, "The Father delights in His Son; the Son looks up to His Father" (Lewis, Mere Christianity).
On the subject of the Holy Spirit, Lewis makes a startling analogy. When you get a group of individuals together like a family or a club you hear people talk about the 'spirit' of that family or club. That spirit is a naturally developed way of talking, a developed way of behaving and other qualities that wouldn't have developed had not it been for that union of individuals. The spirit of the family or club is like another member. Of course, it is not a real entity in the case of the family or club. But the union of Father and Son in love creates a Spirit and because Father and Son is God that Spirit is a real entity and the third person of the Trinity.
I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this analogy. On the one hand it's a good description of the Spirit. But on the other hand, it almost makes it seem like the Spirit is a created being. I'm on the fence about this one.
"If you think of the Father as something 'out there', in front of you, and the Son as someone standing at your side, helping you to pray, trying to turn you into another son, then you have to think of the third Person as something inside you, or behind you" (Lewis, Mere Christianity). Because the Holy Spirit works from inside you or behind you, he is harder to understand, harder to pin down.
No compartmentalizing.
In giving to God one must surrender all. We must become less so that He can become more inside us. If we try to hold on to a little area that is purely our own and not part of God in us, then we hold onto an area of death and refuse the life that God offers us. We shouldn't seek to have a God-part of our lives and an ordinary part for ourselves. In short, do not compartmentalize. I'm terrible at this. I am the quintessential compartmentalizer.
In the end, if you don't choose the Kingdom of God over anything else it will not matter what you have chosen. That's a hard thought. It means that if you choose money or women or alcohol or even positive things like a good job, ambition, education these are all the same in God's eyes - the wrong choice. Lewis puts it bluntly, "Does it matter to a man dying in a desert by which choice of route he missed the only well?" (Lewis, The Weight of Glory).
Help me to get all my compartments filled with things of the Kingdom of God. Help me not to be distracted or to take hold of something as my own. Lewis thinks that you must fight against this on a daily basis, but in the end only God can fully force out our desire for 'limited liabilities' with God. We shouldn't sit back and let God do his thing. We ought to strive to accept the fullness of God in our daily devotions, confident that He will remove this desire for temporal things, the desire to compartmentalize and the desire to have something entirely of our own.
In the end, if you don't choose the Kingdom of God over anything else it will not matter what you have chosen. That's a hard thought. It means that if you choose money or women or alcohol or even positive things like a good job, ambition, education these are all the same in God's eyes - the wrong choice. Lewis puts it bluntly, "Does it matter to a man dying in a desert by which choice of route he missed the only well?" (Lewis, The Weight of Glory).
Help me to get all my compartments filled with things of the Kingdom of God. Help me not to be distracted or to take hold of something as my own. Lewis thinks that you must fight against this on a daily basis, but in the end only God can fully force out our desire for 'limited liabilities' with God. We shouldn't sit back and let God do his thing. We ought to strive to accept the fullness of God in our daily devotions, confident that He will remove this desire for temporal things, the desire to compartmentalize and the desire to have something entirely of our own.
The bare minimum
I'm still playing catch up with C.S. Lewis. His notes for January 29-31 deal with a great temptation for the Christian - to try and reach the bare minimum requirements to be a good Christian. He likens our approach in this temptation to being a tax payer. "Our temptation is to look eagerly for the minimum that will be accepted. We are in fact very like honest but reluctant taxpayers. We approve of an income tax in principle. We are very careful to pay no more than is necessary. And we hope - we very ardently hope - that after we have paid it there will still be enough left to live on" (Lewis, The Weight of Glory).
He talks about going to God in his daily devotions and proceeding with caution. He wants to have that experience with God, but he hopes that God doesn't ask him to do anything that will too seriously disrupt his 'normal' life. Lewis sees this as the temptation to hang on to the temporal things in life instead of grasping for the eternal. I know that I am guilty of this, quite guilty. Lord, help me not to achieve the bare minimum. Help me to not grasp for the temporal at the sake of the eternal.
He talks about going to God in his daily devotions and proceeding with caution. He wants to have that experience with God, but he hopes that God doesn't ask him to do anything that will too seriously disrupt his 'normal' life. Lewis sees this as the temptation to hang on to the temporal things in life instead of grasping for the eternal. I know that I am guilty of this, quite guilty. Lord, help me not to achieve the bare minimum. Help me to not grasp for the temporal at the sake of the eternal.
Monday, February 27, 2017
Some Notes on Christianity from C.S. Lewis
C.S. Lewis states that the three things that spread the Christ-life (the new life in Christ) are baptism, belief and communion. Lewis states he doesn't know why this is the case, but he knows why he believes it is the case: Jesus says so. Lewis trusts the authority of Christ. He then makes a good apologetic for doing so. We trust things on authority all the time. Even though he had never been to New York, he trusts that there is such a place by the authority of others that have been there. "Every historical statement in the world is believed on authority... A man who jibbed at authority in other things as some people do in religion would have to be content to know nothing all his life" (Lewis, Mere Christianity)
It is pointless to seek comfort in Christianity as the first step. He believes that in the long run Christianity is a thing of 'unspeakable comfort' but to seek something out for its comfort rather than for its truth is both wrong and futile.
Lewis compares the Christian religion to reality. Both are slightly odd. They are not what you expect. The fact that Christianity, like reality, in being something that is not what you would've guessed, is one of the reasons he believes Christianity is true.
On goodness Lewis writes, "Good, as it ripens, becomes continually ore different not only from evil but from other good" (Lewis, The Great Divorce)
Lewis notes that there is a qualitative difference between Christians and those who are trying to be good people. "That is why the Christian is in a different position from other people who are trying to be good. They hope, by being good, to please God if there is one; or - if they thing there is not - at least they hope to deserve approval from good men. But the Christian thinks any good he does comes from the Christ-life inside him. He does not think God will love us because we are good, but that God will make us good because He loves us; just as the roof of a greenhouse does not attract the sun because it is bright, but becomes bright because the sun shines on it" (Lewis, Mere Christianity)
It is pointless to seek comfort in Christianity as the first step. He believes that in the long run Christianity is a thing of 'unspeakable comfort' but to seek something out for its comfort rather than for its truth is both wrong and futile.
Lewis compares the Christian religion to reality. Both are slightly odd. They are not what you expect. The fact that Christianity, like reality, in being something that is not what you would've guessed, is one of the reasons he believes Christianity is true.
On goodness Lewis writes, "Good, as it ripens, becomes continually ore different not only from evil but from other good" (Lewis, The Great Divorce)
Lewis notes that there is a qualitative difference between Christians and those who are trying to be good people. "That is why the Christian is in a different position from other people who are trying to be good. They hope, by being good, to please God if there is one; or - if they thing there is not - at least they hope to deserve approval from good men. But the Christian thinks any good he does comes from the Christ-life inside him. He does not think God will love us because we are good, but that God will make us good because He loves us; just as the roof of a greenhouse does not attract the sun because it is bright, but becomes bright because the sun shines on it" (Lewis, Mere Christianity)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)