(Originally written October 24, 2017)
From my Goodreads review.
This is one of my favorite dialogues because it encapsulates Socrates' style without being overly repetitive. It's also an interesting conclusion that virtue cannot be taught or acquired; but, is rather given to virtuous men by the divine. In a Christian understanding of it we might say that Socrates is a good guide by virtue of having a right opinion of imago dei. Certainly he can't have had knowledge of it, but if it leads to the right destination then it is just as useful as knowledge. But, that is just a thought very off topic.
Showing posts with label Theology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Theology. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 24, 2017
Sunday, July 2, 2017
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.
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.
Monday, March 6, 2017
Some of Lewis' thoughts on Free Will (and a short story idea)
God decided to create the world in such a way that man had free will. For what reason would God choose to create a world in which free will exists, knowing as He did, it could end up going very badly (as it did indeed)? "Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata - of creatures that worked like machines - would hardly be worth creating. The happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each other" (Lewis, Mere Christianity).
God could have created a world where man had free will but chose to erase the Original Sin. But, if God had used some sort of magical eraser to erase the Original Sin or hit the reset button, then He would have continued to have to do it to erase the inevitable Second Original Sin, Third Original Sin, Fourth Original Sin, and so on ad infinitum. But, if He had opted for this course than either the world would have never really gotten going or eventually whatever umpteenth number Original Sin would have eventually started off the course at which we found ourselves.
Lewis states that some people claim to be able to imagine a world in which there is Free Will but no possibility of evil. Lewis denies this. Basically he states that in order to have a world with Free Will but with no possibility for the misusage of Free Will God would have to intervene at an infinite rate to produce miracles after miracles in such a way that they would disrupt the natural order of His creation. There would be no laws of physics or any kind of natural law because God would have to constantly intervene whenever someone tried to do something wrong. The way Lewis writes about this gives me a funny idea for a short story involving Cain and Abel.
The Unfortunate Events of Cain and Abel
Say God had decided to intervene with his magic original sin eraser. After about the three thousandth time of erasing the Original Sin God finally gets fed up with Adam and Eve and casts them out of the Garden. But, after awhile he decides to get back up to the whole reset button and magic eraser routine until Cain and Abel are ready to make their sacrifices. God accepts Abel's but rejects Cain's. Cain is so angry at Abel he calls him every name under the sun, but God, in order to spare the evil from polluting the world alters the sound waves so that Abel doesn't hear all the threats that Cain is making. The problem here becomes twofold. First, it further angers Cain. Second, it leaves Abel completely unaware that his brother is furious with him and wants to kill him. He accepts Cain's overtures to go hang out in the rock pit. Whereupon Cain picks up a rock in anger and tries to hit Abel upside the head, but God quickly changes the law of physics so that whatever Cain throws at Abel will end up harmless. The rock flies at Abel who is suddenly popped in the head with a Watermelon, leaving him stunned, but chuckling. He picks up a rock and pummels Cain with it. God however is so tired of this whole magic eraser business and is busy telling the Holy Spirit his frustration that he doesn't notice Abel throwing the rock at Cain and since He only changed the laws of physics to protect Abel from Cain's sin, Abel inadvertently slew Cain. Totally bemused with his first family and his ill-fated attempts to create perfect children with Free Will he decides to hit the reset button and leaves them Free Will and devises a different plan to get them out of the inevitable mess they'll make.
Lewis, however, is a bit more serious minded than I am. He contends that a world where Free Will exists and God changes their mistakes before they become sin would not only create a world where wrong actions are impossible, but where freedom of the will would become impossible. He also makes a fascinating point about being upset with God for creating a world with the possibility of such evil. He argues that we have no right and no real standing when we argue against God on this matter. God is the very source of our reasoning power, so to use our reasoning power to try and argue against him is not only fruitless, it's a little bit like chopping off the branch we're sitting on to spite the tree. The Tree is still going to be standing once we crashed out onto the ground.
God could have created a world where man had free will but chose to erase the Original Sin. But, if God had used some sort of magical eraser to erase the Original Sin or hit the reset button, then He would have continued to have to do it to erase the inevitable Second Original Sin, Third Original Sin, Fourth Original Sin, and so on ad infinitum. But, if He had opted for this course than either the world would have never really gotten going or eventually whatever umpteenth number Original Sin would have eventually started off the course at which we found ourselves.
Lewis states that some people claim to be able to imagine a world in which there is Free Will but no possibility of evil. Lewis denies this. Basically he states that in order to have a world with Free Will but with no possibility for the misusage of Free Will God would have to intervene at an infinite rate to produce miracles after miracles in such a way that they would disrupt the natural order of His creation. There would be no laws of physics or any kind of natural law because God would have to constantly intervene whenever someone tried to do something wrong. The way Lewis writes about this gives me a funny idea for a short story involving Cain and Abel.
The Unfortunate Events of Cain and Abel
Say God had decided to intervene with his magic original sin eraser. After about the three thousandth time of erasing the Original Sin God finally gets fed up with Adam and Eve and casts them out of the Garden. But, after awhile he decides to get back up to the whole reset button and magic eraser routine until Cain and Abel are ready to make their sacrifices. God accepts Abel's but rejects Cain's. Cain is so angry at Abel he calls him every name under the sun, but God, in order to spare the evil from polluting the world alters the sound waves so that Abel doesn't hear all the threats that Cain is making. The problem here becomes twofold. First, it further angers Cain. Second, it leaves Abel completely unaware that his brother is furious with him and wants to kill him. He accepts Cain's overtures to go hang out in the rock pit. Whereupon Cain picks up a rock in anger and tries to hit Abel upside the head, but God quickly changes the law of physics so that whatever Cain throws at Abel will end up harmless. The rock flies at Abel who is suddenly popped in the head with a Watermelon, leaving him stunned, but chuckling. He picks up a rock and pummels Cain with it. God however is so tired of this whole magic eraser business and is busy telling the Holy Spirit his frustration that he doesn't notice Abel throwing the rock at Cain and since He only changed the laws of physics to protect Abel from Cain's sin, Abel inadvertently slew Cain. Totally bemused with his first family and his ill-fated attempts to create perfect children with Free Will he decides to hit the reset button and leaves them Free Will and devises a different plan to get them out of the inevitable mess they'll make.
Lewis, however, is a bit more serious minded than I am. He contends that a world where Free Will exists and God changes their mistakes before they become sin would not only create a world where wrong actions are impossible, but where freedom of the will would become impossible. He also makes a fascinating point about being upset with God for creating a world with the possibility of such evil. He argues that we have no right and no real standing when we argue against God on this matter. God is the very source of our reasoning power, so to use our reasoning power to try and argue against him is not only fruitless, it's a little bit like chopping off the branch we're sitting on to spite the tree. The Tree is still going to be standing once we crashed out onto the ground.
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.
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)
Myths that mirror the Christ story are good dreams sent by God
A couple of days ago I wrote about a post I titled as Myths as a basis for believing in Christ as a note about my (sightly behind schedule) daily readings in A Year With C.S. Lewis. January 22nd's post (I know, I'm more that slightly behind schedule) follows up on this. I'm not sure when I first came to think that Christianity was foreshadowed by earlier myths or even partially understand as a part of our human nature, but it might have been with C.S. Lewis. It also might have been in college when I became interested in exactly what the Imago Dei meant to us. I think that I believe that being made in the image of God, we have an innate understanding of who God is. While this innate idea is neither perfect nor complete, it allows us to have, at least at a subconscious level, a deep understanding of even some of the finer points of Christian theology. While Lewis doesn't necessarily point to the whole being made in the image of God as a reason, I don't think he would disagree either. He talks more about what God has done, rather than what we can glean from being made in the image of God. In this post he writes:
"And what did God do? First of all He left us conscience, the sense of right and wrong: and all through history there have been people trying (some of them very hard) to obey it. None of them quite succeeded. Secondly, He sent the human race what I call good dreams: I mean those queer stories scattered all through the heathen religions about a god who dies and comes to life again, and by his death, has somehow given new life to men" (Lewis, from Mere Christianity).
"And what did God do? First of all He left us conscience, the sense of right and wrong: and all through history there have been people trying (some of them very hard) to obey it. None of them quite succeeded. Secondly, He sent the human race what I call good dreams: I mean those queer stories scattered all through the heathen religions about a god who dies and comes to life again, and by his death, has somehow given new life to men" (Lewis, from Mere Christianity).
Thursday, February 23, 2017
Myths as a basis for believing in Christ
One of the things that many detractors from Christianity love to throw out there is the similarity between things from the Scriptures and other ancient religions that may have been older than what happened in the Scriptures. Recently, I've seen lots of posts about Horus or Osiris and how their stories both predates Christ's and are very similar. I've always wondered wether this is a valid criticism of Christianity, maybe they are correct in assuming that Christianity has just borrowed concepts from older religions. But, being a believer, I've always thought that there had to be another explanation.
I've wondered if the reason as to why many of the Biblical stories mirror other myths is that God has used those myths as a way of preparing the way for all peoples to have some sort of base so that they can more easily accept the truth of God. Lewis seems to think something similar as he notes in Is Theology Poetry?
He notes that theology offers special revelation, but also a general one too. "We should, therefore, expect to find in the imagination of great Pagan teachers and myth makers some glimpse of that theme which we believe to be the very plot of the whole cosmic story - the theme of incarnation, death and rebirth. And the differences between the Pagan Christs (Balder, Osiris, etc.) and the Christ Himself is much what we should expect to find. The Pagan stories are all about someone dying and rising, either every year, or else nobody knows where and nobody knows when" (Lewis from Is Theology of Poetry?). Lewis points out that comparing the myths to Christianity is "like watching something come gradually into focus; first it hangs in the clouds of myth and ritual, vast and vague, then it condenses, grows hard and in a sense small, as a historical event in first century Palestine".
When Christ came down to earth he partly emptied himself of his glory. Lewis points out that all things come down from heaven to earth (general revelation) and in doing so they too have been emptied partially of some of their glory. That is why myths are partially correct. In and of themselves, the myths can't lead to salvation; but they can provide the basis for coming to understand the truth that leads to salvation.
I'd love to explore this topic further.
I've wondered if the reason as to why many of the Biblical stories mirror other myths is that God has used those myths as a way of preparing the way for all peoples to have some sort of base so that they can more easily accept the truth of God. Lewis seems to think something similar as he notes in Is Theology Poetry?
He notes that theology offers special revelation, but also a general one too. "We should, therefore, expect to find in the imagination of great Pagan teachers and myth makers some glimpse of that theme which we believe to be the very plot of the whole cosmic story - the theme of incarnation, death and rebirth. And the differences between the Pagan Christs (Balder, Osiris, etc.) and the Christ Himself is much what we should expect to find. The Pagan stories are all about someone dying and rising, either every year, or else nobody knows where and nobody knows when" (Lewis from Is Theology of Poetry?). Lewis points out that comparing the myths to Christianity is "like watching something come gradually into focus; first it hangs in the clouds of myth and ritual, vast and vague, then it condenses, grows hard and in a sense small, as a historical event in first century Palestine".
When Christ came down to earth he partly emptied himself of his glory. Lewis points out that all things come down from heaven to earth (general revelation) and in doing so they too have been emptied partially of some of their glory. That is why myths are partially correct. In and of themselves, the myths can't lead to salvation; but they can provide the basis for coming to understand the truth that leads to salvation.
I'd love to explore this topic further.
God and the Atlantic Ocean
Lewis describes how after giving a speech to the Royal Air Force an old officer exclaimed that he had no time for creeds of Christianity because they were meaningless. He believed in God and had in fact experienced him in his own life. But, the creeds and theology of Christianity felt less real than that type of experience.
Lewis compared this to seeing the Atlantic ocean in real life and seeing it on a map. Of course seeing it in real life was a more tangible experience, but the map is made from thousands of persons' experience with the Atlantic Ocean. You, as a single person, can experience the Atlantic Ocean in a one-on-one level as much as you like. But, to sail across it one will need maps. It's the same thing with Scripture and theology. You can experience God at a one-on-one level, but without a map you're going to have a lot of walks on the beach, but your not going to make it across the Atlantic.
Interestingly, he notes that the experiences we have with God at that one-on-one level are certainly exciting, but like the old officer, often nothing comes of it. "It leads nowhere. There is nothing to do about it... It is all thrills and no work" (Lewis, from Mere Christianity). But, when using the maps (theology and Scripture) requires work to get to God. It's relying on hundreds of people's experience with God, mapping out a way to get to God on a deeper level.
Lewis compared this to seeing the Atlantic ocean in real life and seeing it on a map. Of course seeing it in real life was a more tangible experience, but the map is made from thousands of persons' experience with the Atlantic Ocean. You, as a single person, can experience the Atlantic Ocean in a one-on-one level as much as you like. But, to sail across it one will need maps. It's the same thing with Scripture and theology. You can experience God at a one-on-one level, but without a map you're going to have a lot of walks on the beach, but your not going to make it across the Atlantic.
Interestingly, he notes that the experiences we have with God at that one-on-one level are certainly exciting, but like the old officer, often nothing comes of it. "It leads nowhere. There is nothing to do about it... It is all thrills and no work" (Lewis, from Mere Christianity). But, when using the maps (theology and Scripture) requires work to get to God. It's relying on hundreds of people's experience with God, mapping out a way to get to God on a deeper level.
God is always in the Now
God does not experience time like man does. There is no yesterday or tomorrow for God. For God, everything happens Now. This removes the problem of God's foreknowledge and man's free will. We are free to act without God knowing what we are doing tomorrow because God is seeing our actions of tomorrow as we do them. But God sees our actions of today, yesterday and tomorrow Now. "He is already in tomorrow and can simply watch you. In a sense, He does not know your action till you have done it: but then the moment at which you have done it is already 'Now' for Him" (C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity)
On a separate and infuriating note, I tried to explain this to Erin to no avail. She simply disagreed with me over and over again.
On a separate and infuriating note, I tried to explain this to Erin to no avail. She simply disagreed with me over and over again.
Monday, January 16, 2017
Three responses to God
It is not true that God is our only good. It is the fact that God is the only good and thus, He is our only good. There are three responses to the goodness of God.
1) To be God
2) "To be like God and to share His goodness" (Lewis, 18)
3) To be miserable
As a part of creation it is impossible for us to be God. The creature cannot be the creator. Thus, we are left with two alternatives - we must either be like God and share in His goodness or we must not be like Him and have no share in His goodness. By having no share in God we have no share in goodness; thus our only option is to live in misery.
1) To be God
2) "To be like God and to share His goodness" (Lewis, 18)
3) To be miserable
As a part of creation it is impossible for us to be God. The creature cannot be the creator. Thus, we are left with two alternatives - we must either be like God and share in His goodness or we must not be like Him and have no share in His goodness. By having no share in God we have no share in goodness; thus our only option is to live in misery.
Sunday, January 15, 2017
Catching up with CS Lewis
I'm still not hitting the everyday goal with A Year With C.S. Lewis. But, I'm going to play catch up before I'm too far behind.
January 5
Lewis hits hard when he writes of people "playing with religion". I know that I'm saved, but I still like to tread the middle ground and dabble in religion. C.S. Lewis is not messing around and playing with religion. His theology is severe and rightfully so.
January 6
Lewis continues to pound against those that are playing with religion and only half-heartedly accepting God as some impersonal force. He sees those who look at God as something as a great mysterious force behind the universe trying to create a tame God that gives all the benefits of religion with none of its costs.
January 7
Christianity is not pantheistic in its worldview. "It thinks God made the world - that space and time, heat and cold, and all the colours and tastes, and all the animals and vegetables, are things that God 'made up out of His head' as a man makes up a story. But it also thinks that a great many things have gone wrong with the world that God made and that God insists, and insists very loudly, on our putting them right again" (Lewis, 9). C.S. Lewis calls Christianity a 'fighting religion'. It has solid beliefs that one cannot play with, accepting the benefits without the cost or accepting them some of the time and not the other based on what is personally convenience. Christianity demands adhering to solid beliefs and what is more, those solid beliefs demand action on our part. Christianity is not some passive religion.
January 8
Christians can see past the basics of our religion. At first it seems to only be about morality and duty. But, as a Christian delves deeper into his or her faith they realize that there is something beyond this where moral beauty exists without ever having to think about it.
January 9
The Moral Law that God has put into the heads of man reveals more about God than does the universe in general. Listening to and becoming in tune with that innate idea of morality will reveal more and more about the nature of God.
January 10
Many people want a heavenly Grandfather rather than a heavenly Father. Once again, Lewis' faith demands correct belief and correct theology. We all (including Christians) want a grandfather in Heaven that smiles down with benevolence and hopes that a good time will be had by all. But, as Christians we must believe that God is Love and we know through his Word that He is our Heavenly Father and not some Heavenly Grandfather hoping that we will all get along all right. We need to correct our faith and force ourselves not to see God as such.
January 11
God is love and this means God is more than merely kindness. Kindness hopes that one will escape suffering and achieve happiness at any level. This is a weird form of contempt. One who is kind to animals will often kill animals so they avoid suffering. This is not the love of God. "If God is Love, He is, by definition, something more than mere kindness. And it appears, from all the records, that though He has often rebuked us and condemned us, He has never regarded us with contempt. He has paid us the intolerable compliment of loving us, in the deepest, most tragic, most inexorable sense" (Lewis, 13).
Lewis reminds me in every single portion so far that faith in God is serious business. Yes, there is joy and happiness in God, but it isn't just warm fuzzies all day long. It is a serious relationship that one cannot simply just play at. I struggle with this. I play with the relationship and the religion.
January 12
Lewis again reminds us that God's love is not just Him trying to make us happy. It is a passionate love, a jealous love from the "consuming fire Himself". It is not something to be taken lightly.
January 14
"When you come to knowing God, the initiative lies on His side. If He does not show Himself, nothing you can do will enable you to find Him. And, in fact, He shows more of Himself to some people than to others - not because He has favourites, but because it is impossible for Him to show Himself to a man whose whole mind and character are in the wrong condition. Just as sunlight, though it has no favourites, cannot be rejected in a dusty mirror as clearly as in a clean one" (Lewis, 16). There is a lot packed into that little section. First, it's a reminder that knowing God comes from Him, not from anything we are doing. Second, it reminds us that we must get ourselves into the right condition to receive the blessing of knowledge of God. He pours out his light like the sun pours out its light, but if we are dusty mirrors we won't reflect and absorb that light the way we were intended to.
January 15
A good point on the philosophy of religion - "If He who in Himself can lack nothing chooses to need us, it is because we need to be needed" (Lewis, 17).
"Our highest activity must be response, not initiative. To experience the love of God in a true, and not an illusory form, is therefore to experience it as our surrender to His demand, our conformity to His desire: to experience it in the opposite way is, as it were, a solecism against the grammar of being" (Lewis, 17).
It is hard to wait on God. It is hard to be only responsive. It takes a submissiveness and a breaking of pride to admit that I must respond to God and not that God will respond to me. It takes humility that I sorely need. Grant me this humility so that I can achieve the highest activity I was made for - responding to you.
January 5
Lewis hits hard when he writes of people "playing with religion". I know that I'm saved, but I still like to tread the middle ground and dabble in religion. C.S. Lewis is not messing around and playing with religion. His theology is severe and rightfully so.
January 6
Lewis continues to pound against those that are playing with religion and only half-heartedly accepting God as some impersonal force. He sees those who look at God as something as a great mysterious force behind the universe trying to create a tame God that gives all the benefits of religion with none of its costs.
January 7
Christianity is not pantheistic in its worldview. "It thinks God made the world - that space and time, heat and cold, and all the colours and tastes, and all the animals and vegetables, are things that God 'made up out of His head' as a man makes up a story. But it also thinks that a great many things have gone wrong with the world that God made and that God insists, and insists very loudly, on our putting them right again" (Lewis, 9). C.S. Lewis calls Christianity a 'fighting religion'. It has solid beliefs that one cannot play with, accepting the benefits without the cost or accepting them some of the time and not the other based on what is personally convenience. Christianity demands adhering to solid beliefs and what is more, those solid beliefs demand action on our part. Christianity is not some passive religion.
January 8
Christians can see past the basics of our religion. At first it seems to only be about morality and duty. But, as a Christian delves deeper into his or her faith they realize that there is something beyond this where moral beauty exists without ever having to think about it.
January 9
The Moral Law that God has put into the heads of man reveals more about God than does the universe in general. Listening to and becoming in tune with that innate idea of morality will reveal more and more about the nature of God.
January 10
Many people want a heavenly Grandfather rather than a heavenly Father. Once again, Lewis' faith demands correct belief and correct theology. We all (including Christians) want a grandfather in Heaven that smiles down with benevolence and hopes that a good time will be had by all. But, as Christians we must believe that God is Love and we know through his Word that He is our Heavenly Father and not some Heavenly Grandfather hoping that we will all get along all right. We need to correct our faith and force ourselves not to see God as such.
January 11
God is love and this means God is more than merely kindness. Kindness hopes that one will escape suffering and achieve happiness at any level. This is a weird form of contempt. One who is kind to animals will often kill animals so they avoid suffering. This is not the love of God. "If God is Love, He is, by definition, something more than mere kindness. And it appears, from all the records, that though He has often rebuked us and condemned us, He has never regarded us with contempt. He has paid us the intolerable compliment of loving us, in the deepest, most tragic, most inexorable sense" (Lewis, 13).
Lewis reminds me in every single portion so far that faith in God is serious business. Yes, there is joy and happiness in God, but it isn't just warm fuzzies all day long. It is a serious relationship that one cannot simply just play at. I struggle with this. I play with the relationship and the religion.
January 12
Lewis again reminds us that God's love is not just Him trying to make us happy. It is a passionate love, a jealous love from the "consuming fire Himself". It is not something to be taken lightly.
January 14
"When you come to knowing God, the initiative lies on His side. If He does not show Himself, nothing you can do will enable you to find Him. And, in fact, He shows more of Himself to some people than to others - not because He has favourites, but because it is impossible for Him to show Himself to a man whose whole mind and character are in the wrong condition. Just as sunlight, though it has no favourites, cannot be rejected in a dusty mirror as clearly as in a clean one" (Lewis, 16). There is a lot packed into that little section. First, it's a reminder that knowing God comes from Him, not from anything we are doing. Second, it reminds us that we must get ourselves into the right condition to receive the blessing of knowledge of God. He pours out his light like the sun pours out its light, but if we are dusty mirrors we won't reflect and absorb that light the way we were intended to.
January 15
A good point on the philosophy of religion - "If He who in Himself can lack nothing chooses to need us, it is because we need to be needed" (Lewis, 17).
"Our highest activity must be response, not initiative. To experience the love of God in a true, and not an illusory form, is therefore to experience it as our surrender to His demand, our conformity to His desire: to experience it in the opposite way is, as it were, a solecism against the grammar of being" (Lewis, 17).
It is hard to wait on God. It is hard to be only responsive. It takes a submissiveness and a breaking of pride to admit that I must respond to God and not that God will respond to me. It takes humility that I sorely need. Grant me this humility so that I can achieve the highest activity I was made for - responding to you.
Monday, October 31, 2016
Assessment of the Chronicles of Narnia
October was an especially fruitful month for my reading challenge. I finished thirteen books after completing only two in September. Among them were the seven books of the Chronicles of Narnia. I loved C.S. Lewis' works as a young child and decided to reread them as an adult and was not disappointed. I gave them all three stars on Goodreads other than Prince Caspian, which I gave four stars. Honestly, the best part of this series is that Lewis is such a great storyteller, you feel right in the middle of the story. I really enjoy how he weaves non-Christian myths into his allegorical telling of Christianity.
As far as ranking the books, currently from favorite to least I give this order:
Prince Caspian
The Horse and His Boy
The Last Battle
The Silver Chair
As far as ranking the books, currently from favorite to least I give this order:
Prince Caspian
The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
The Magician's Nephew
The Lion, the Witch and the WardrobeThe Horse and His Boy
The Last Battle
The Silver Chair
I think I enjoyed Prince Caspian the best because it was interesting to think of the four children, who had once been the Kings and Queens of Narnia, returning to the land they ruled in the golden age as children again, far into the Narnian future. I enjoyed the time differential in our world and in Narnia and how it was utilized. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader came next simply because it was such an interesting story on going to the edge of the world. The Magician's Nephew I enjoyed only slightly more than The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe simply because I remembered the latter more clearly than the former and it was like reading The Magician's Nephew for the first time again. The Horse and His Boy is an excellent one too and I would consider the five I mentioned above as considerably more enjoyable to me than the last two. The Silver Chair I enjoyed the least simply because I found Eustace less interesting as a character than the other four children, and I felt that it was aimed at slightly younger readings and thus lost some of its universality.
The Last Battle has some interesting theological points in the follower of Tash coming to the final Narnia. I won't go to far into it, but there is an interesting idea of grace that I get from it. Personally, I think that the way to Heaven is laid out scripturally, no one comes to the Father but through Jesus Christ the Son. I don't think doctrinally or theologically a Christian can stray too far from this to embrace any kind of universal salvation for mankind, but I do think there is something to be said of admitting that the grace of God is larger than our ability to understand it. It's not something I would want to build a system of theology on, but something I would offer about any theory of God I would offer. It's good to admit one's limitations when describing God without limiting Him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)