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).
Sunday, July 2, 2017
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)