(In response to Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis)
I absolutely loved this book when I first read it last summer. I had been talking to my father about how I had felt concerning the state of the church today. I believe that we fight over things that are so minor. I believe that we have split ourselves and have in a sense become enemies of each other. We all believe in the same Heavenly Father, and to me it is not necessarily important whether you believe women should be in office, or whether you believe children should or should not be baptized. I believe that as a church we should be more ecumenical. I believe in A holy CATHOLIC church. One church... we need to unite together. Outsiders see the fighting within and between our churches and they are pushed away.
Over the coarse of this semester we have talked about a lot of controversial topics. We have discussed them from a Christian standpoint, we have all voiced different and separate views. And yet, together, we are still one class. I believe that this is the way the church should be.
I am happy that we ended the class in reading Mere Christianity. I feel that everyone enjoyed the entire book. I feel like this book is a welcomed slap in the face awakening us to the hypocrisies in the church and urging us to act.
"Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. " Lewis goes on to talk about how we have begun to expect more out of other people than we expect from ourselves. This is a cause of fighting between Christians and non-Christians alike.
I love how Lewis deals with Moral law and how explains them. He makes it clear that moral law is not something that was refined by a "herd instinct" but he also makes it clear that it is something we all have. That it was something developed for a reason. And that God had a hand in it.
"All I have got to is a Something which is directing the universe, and which appears in me as a law urging me to do right and making me feel responsible and uncomfortable when I do wrong. I think we have to assume it is more like a mind than it is like anything else we know--because after all the only other thing we know is matter and you can hardly imagine a bit of matter giving instructions."
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Luke
I can't remember the last name of our guest speaker. I believed that he conveyed a lot of life lessons to us. I truly believe that our knowledge and education is not based on the grades we receive. I believe that it is about the journey. I believe that education is there to shape and mold us into the people we should be. Yes it is important to take school work seriously, and yes we do need good grades, but when our goal is to achieve good grades that is all we have done. We have not learned anything. We have only the grades we received.
I also agreed with some of the highlights of his DCM. I also enjoyed "Learning in Wartime" and "Our English Syllabus" I thought it was a good idea to bring someone in who had gone through this class. It was nice to see where he is at in his life now, and how reading C.S. Lewis had affected his life. Hopefully we can all take something special out of our own personal experiences.
I also agreed with some of the highlights of his DCM. I also enjoyed "Learning in Wartime" and "Our English Syllabus" I thought it was a good idea to bring someone in who had gone through this class. It was nice to see where he is at in his life now, and how reading C.S. Lewis had affected his life. Hopefully we can all take something special out of our own personal experiences.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Play
I enjoyed the short piece that was read before class. I felt it encapsulated how we all should play. We should all work hard and play the game no matter what our situations are. We should all apply this concept not only to sports, but to school, and most importantly to life. It was fun to play a little soccer with the class. I can't say that soccer is my sport, or that I'm any good at it. But it was fun being out of my element. It was fun seeing others within their element. It was an enjoyable time.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Temporum
(In response to "Temporum" by C.S. Lewis)
I did enjoy this piece. I felt that it may have been a little over my head. I'm still unsure if it was over my head because I didn't understand at what he was trying to say, or if I understood and believed in what he had to say so much so that I didn't think it worth writing about. I think it becomes clearer in this piece that it may have been my latter thought. Lewis points out two types of people in his piece, those who are of the old storied tradition yet are within the new, and those who are embracing the new with complete disregard for the old. If you are within the first group of people that Lewis talks about it is hard to understand why people think it unimportant to disregard history and things that happened in the past.
"When Watt makes his engine, when Darwin starts monkeying with the ancestry of Man, and Freud with his soul, and the economists with all that is his, then indeed the lion will have got out of its cage." This is a beautifully worded piece of mastery.
"Our rulers have become like schoolmasters and are always demanding 'keenness'. And you notice that I am guilty of a slight archaism in calling them 'rulers'. 'Leaders' is the modem word. I have suggested elsewhere that this is a deeply significant change of vocabulary. Our demand upon them has changed no less than theirs on us. For of a ruler one asks justice, incorruption, diligence, perhaps clemency; of a leader, dash, initiative, and (I suppose) what people call 'magnetism' or 'personality'." I found this part very interesting because I consider myself to be a leader. Lewis appears to be comparing leaders to Rulers. He says that this is a clever word change to change the perception of rulers. He says that they do the same things. I can agree with him in the fact that a ruler and a leader seeks the same goals. I guess that I can somewhat agree with the claims Lewis makes. I do feel that ruler has a negative connotation because of rulers that we have had in the past (e.g. Hitler). But this statement holds a lot of weight for me in terms of self assessment.
At the end of Lewis's piece he talks of a dinosaur coming into your building. He makes the point that all of us would run for the safety of our lives, as to not be eaten. However, wouldn't some of you look back out of curiosity? The dinosaur becomes history in this analogy. There are those who look back at the dinosaur to see how it moves, how it acts, to experience it. And there are those who run backs turned afraid of what they might see. I don't think Lewis's is necessarily pointing out that one is wrong and the other is right. I think he is just advocating on the behalf of those who look back, stating that they to have a valid reason for looking back. They have curiosity. It's not that they dislike the future, its that they are still intrigued by the past.
I did enjoy this piece. I felt that it may have been a little over my head. I'm still unsure if it was over my head because I didn't understand at what he was trying to say, or if I understood and believed in what he had to say so much so that I didn't think it worth writing about. I think it becomes clearer in this piece that it may have been my latter thought. Lewis points out two types of people in his piece, those who are of the old storied tradition yet are within the new, and those who are embracing the new with complete disregard for the old. If you are within the first group of people that Lewis talks about it is hard to understand why people think it unimportant to disregard history and things that happened in the past.
"When Watt makes his engine, when Darwin starts monkeying with the ancestry of Man, and Freud with his soul, and the economists with all that is his, then indeed the lion will have got out of its cage." This is a beautifully worded piece of mastery.
"Our rulers have become like schoolmasters and are always demanding 'keenness'. And you notice that I am guilty of a slight archaism in calling them 'rulers'. 'Leaders' is the modem word. I have suggested elsewhere that this is a deeply significant change of vocabulary. Our demand upon them has changed no less than theirs on us. For of a ruler one asks justice, incorruption, diligence, perhaps clemency; of a leader, dash, initiative, and (I suppose) what people call 'magnetism' or 'personality'." I found this part very interesting because I consider myself to be a leader. Lewis appears to be comparing leaders to Rulers. He says that this is a clever word change to change the perception of rulers. He says that they do the same things. I can agree with him in the fact that a ruler and a leader seeks the same goals. I guess that I can somewhat agree with the claims Lewis makes. I do feel that ruler has a negative connotation because of rulers that we have had in the past (e.g. Hitler). But this statement holds a lot of weight for me in terms of self assessment.
At the end of Lewis's piece he talks of a dinosaur coming into your building. He makes the point that all of us would run for the safety of our lives, as to not be eaten. However, wouldn't some of you look back out of curiosity? The dinosaur becomes history in this analogy. There are those who look back at the dinosaur to see how it moves, how it acts, to experience it. And there are those who run backs turned afraid of what they might see. I don't think Lewis's is necessarily pointing out that one is wrong and the other is right. I think he is just advocating on the behalf of those who look back, stating that they to have a valid reason for looking back. They have curiosity. It's not that they dislike the future, its that they are still intrigued by the past.
Abolition of Man (chapter 3)
(In response to the Abolition of Man chapter 3 by C.S. Lewis)
"The last men, far from being the heirs of power, will be of all men most subject to the dead hand of the great planners and conditioners and will themselves exercise least power upon the future." Lewis talks about the exertion of power of man over nature. He describes that man's power is continually diminishing because it can only influence what is left or what has already been influenced by some other man. Adam had the greatest influence among nature because everything he did was in a sense new or different. Now, because there are so many people for this power to be shared with, and because there is less to be discovered, man's power is less.
I can understand what Lewis is talking about within a educational and scientific realm. However, it because less clear when you reflect his views upon a Christian standpoint of redemption, reconciliation, and salvation. In this sense, I believe now more than ever it is imperative that we include all of the men, the task is too great for one single man. We must all take part in this and we all have a huge influence over what we do and the impact we have. The "Butterfly Affect" describes this a little bit.
I enjoyed this series of readings on the "Abolition of Man" by C.S. Lewis. It was interesting to see him discuss a topic of relevance from a non-Christian standpoint but still argue morally and ethically. This was a truly powerful and influential essay in terms of how to view things both logically and emotionally. In part, I believe this could be called a "non-Christian 'Meditations in a Tool Shed" because I believe they address some of the same issues.
"The last men, far from being the heirs of power, will be of all men most subject to the dead hand of the great planners and conditioners and will themselves exercise least power upon the future." Lewis talks about the exertion of power of man over nature. He describes that man's power is continually diminishing because it can only influence what is left or what has already been influenced by some other man. Adam had the greatest influence among nature because everything he did was in a sense new or different. Now, because there are so many people for this power to be shared with, and because there is less to be discovered, man's power is less.
I can understand what Lewis is talking about within a educational and scientific realm. However, it because less clear when you reflect his views upon a Christian standpoint of redemption, reconciliation, and salvation. In this sense, I believe now more than ever it is imperative that we include all of the men, the task is too great for one single man. We must all take part in this and we all have a huge influence over what we do and the impact we have. The "Butterfly Affect" describes this a little bit.
I enjoyed this series of readings on the "Abolition of Man" by C.S. Lewis. It was interesting to see him discuss a topic of relevance from a non-Christian standpoint but still argue morally and ethically. This was a truly powerful and influential essay in terms of how to view things both logically and emotionally. In part, I believe this could be called a "non-Christian 'Meditations in a Tool Shed" because I believe they address some of the same issues.
The Way
(In response to chapter 2 of Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis)
"If we lump together, as I have done, the traditional moralities of East and West, the Christian, the Pagan, and the Jew, shall we not find many contradictions and some absurdities? I admit all this. Some criticism, some removal of contradictions, even some real development, is required. But there are two very different kinds of criticism." I believe the two different kinds of criticism are those that construct and those that are just derogatory. Because this is an essay written to address problems of science and the pushing forth of technology it is important to know who Lewis's audience is when he is writing these things. Lewis is not concerned with proving the existence of God here. He is, however, concerned with providing a place for religion within the educational and scientific worlds. That we shouldn't criticize others simply because we think it is ridiculous, rather, we should only criticize to build others up.
Lewis also talked about moral advances which are harder to come by and more powerful, and how they differ from mere moral innovations. He explained that a moral innovation is that which is not hard to accept because it flows out of something from the past. A moral advance on the other hand, is something that does not flow out of a past belief. This is the very reason that a moral advance must be justified, it is harder to justify a moral advance than it is to justify an innovation. This is pertinent to his audience.
"If we lump together, as I have done, the traditional moralities of East and West, the Christian, the Pagan, and the Jew, shall we not find many contradictions and some absurdities? I admit all this. Some criticism, some removal of contradictions, even some real development, is required. But there are two very different kinds of criticism." I believe the two different kinds of criticism are those that construct and those that are just derogatory. Because this is an essay written to address problems of science and the pushing forth of technology it is important to know who Lewis's audience is when he is writing these things. Lewis is not concerned with proving the existence of God here. He is, however, concerned with providing a place for religion within the educational and scientific worlds. That we shouldn't criticize others simply because we think it is ridiculous, rather, we should only criticize to build others up.
Lewis also talked about moral advances which are harder to come by and more powerful, and how they differ from mere moral innovations. He explained that a moral innovation is that which is not hard to accept because it flows out of something from the past. A moral advance on the other hand, is something that does not flow out of a past belief. This is the very reason that a moral advance must be justified, it is harder to justify a moral advance than it is to justify an innovation. This is pertinent to his audience.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Men Without Chests
(In response to C.S. Lewis's "Abolition of Man" chapter 1 Men Without Chests)
In this piece Lewis analysis how people should deal with emotions or logic. He does this by analyzing a text book. He states that the authors of the textbook choose to analyze the emotion of the piece rather than the literary techniques. Lewis acknowledges that it is easier to disprove an argument based on emotional analysis than it is to disprove an argument based on literary techniques.
I feel that this piece may have been directed to what I had said in class on Monday, in terms of something saying a whole lot when in reality it didn't say anything at all. Lewis quotes this belief in his paper, "Their words are that we 'appear to be saying something very important' when in reality we are 'only saying something about our own feelings'" This can be said about a lot of literature; however, we must be careful to fully use our logic before we make an emotional decision.
This goes back to our debate last week... "Someone can see where reason would be used over emotions in making a decision or understanding something, But one cannot see where emotional factors would be considered over logical ones." And I believe the point Lewis is making in this piece is that yes... logic and reason and literary techniques in analyzing literature are necessary and in some cases the only way to discern what is good. However, we cannot simply rule out the possibility that emotions have no weight in our decisions or judgment calls.
Some interesting quotes:
"The task of the modern educator is not to cut down jungles but to irrigate deserts."
"The heart never takes the place of the head: but it can, and should, obey it."
"In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful."
In this piece Lewis analysis how people should deal with emotions or logic. He does this by analyzing a text book. He states that the authors of the textbook choose to analyze the emotion of the piece rather than the literary techniques. Lewis acknowledges that it is easier to disprove an argument based on emotional analysis than it is to disprove an argument based on literary techniques.
I feel that this piece may have been directed to what I had said in class on Monday, in terms of something saying a whole lot when in reality it didn't say anything at all. Lewis quotes this belief in his paper, "Their words are that we 'appear to be saying something very important' when in reality we are 'only saying something about our own feelings'" This can be said about a lot of literature; however, we must be careful to fully use our logic before we make an emotional decision.
This goes back to our debate last week... "Someone can see where reason would be used over emotions in making a decision or understanding something, But one cannot see where emotional factors would be considered over logical ones." And I believe the point Lewis is making in this piece is that yes... logic and reason and literary techniques in analyzing literature are necessary and in some cases the only way to discern what is good. However, we cannot simply rule out the possibility that emotions have no weight in our decisions or judgment calls.
Some interesting quotes:
"The task of the modern educator is not to cut down jungles but to irrigate deserts."
"The heart never takes the place of the head: but it can, and should, obey it."
"In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful."
Monday, April 7, 2008
Thrice
(In response to listening to the song "Abolition of Man" by Thrice)
I liked the lyrics and thought they were intellectually stimulating. The more I listen to the song the more I like it. It gives me an upbeat sensation and a desire to get up and do something. I like the pace of the song, however I feel that the music is sometimes to fast for the lyrics. The words do not move as fast as the music and it makes it a little harder to listen to the lyrics.
I enjoyed this song.
I liked the lyrics and thought they were intellectually stimulating. The more I listen to the song the more I like it. It gives me an upbeat sensation and a desire to get up and do something. I like the pace of the song, however I feel that the music is sometimes to fast for the lyrics. The words do not move as fast as the music and it makes it a little harder to listen to the lyrics.
I enjoyed this song.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Priestesses in the Church?
(In response to "Priestesses in the Church?" by C.S. Lewis")
For some reason this topic always seems to be a touchy subject with everyone dancing around what they really want to say. In the end nothing really gets said. We talked about the difference between priests and pastors within the church and that because we don't believe that pastors are God's inspired representatives/ direct image bearers that the argument looses its hold. We stated that in the Christian Reformed Church Lewis's argument loses it's weight and falls short. Lewis never makes claim that women are not capable of becoming priestesses. He does say that because priests are image bearers of God that men must fulfill this role. "But it is an old saying in the army that you salute the uniform not the wearer. Only one wearing the masculine uniform can represent the Lord to the Church: for we are all, corporately and individually, feminine to Him."
In class we discussed why we believe women should be able to preach because we are all made in God's image and that women are not less gifted then men, and should be able to express their spiritual gift accordingly. Lewis doesn't dispute this. "No one among those who dislike the proposal is maintaining that women are less capable than men of piety, zeal, learning and whatever else seems necessary for the pastoral office." He says that women can be prophets. I think when we argued this in class we argued whether women could be preachers based on their abilities. Preachers... Everyone can be a preacher, much like Lewis says everyone can be a prophet or prophetess. The question Lewis posed was do you think women should be Reverends. Should women be at the head of the church? Should women be the leader and shepherd of a flock? I'm not sure if we answered this in class.
Lewis poses the question this way: "To us a priest is primarily a representative, a double representative, who represents us to God and God to us... We have no objection to a woman doing the first: the whole difficulty is about the second."
Lewis then goes on to talk about being sexually neuter. "But in our Christian life we must return to reality. There we are not homogeneous units, but different and complementary organs of a mystical body." This is how Lewis describes the difference between men and women. And some may say that it is a cop out. Maybe women should be leaders of the church. But, maybe there are some things we simply cannot explain. Maybe women should not be leaders of the church.
Personally, on the surface I cannot think of any reasons of why a women should not be a leader of the church. However, strong conditioning against it leads me into some sort of apprehension. I'm not sure whether I would want to answer definitively either way. The truth is simply to wonderful for me to know.
For some reason this topic always seems to be a touchy subject with everyone dancing around what they really want to say. In the end nothing really gets said. We talked about the difference between priests and pastors within the church and that because we don't believe that pastors are God's inspired representatives/ direct image bearers that the argument looses its hold. We stated that in the Christian Reformed Church Lewis's argument loses it's weight and falls short. Lewis never makes claim that women are not capable of becoming priestesses. He does say that because priests are image bearers of God that men must fulfill this role. "But it is an old saying in the army that you salute the uniform not the wearer. Only one wearing the masculine uniform can represent the Lord to the Church: for we are all, corporately and individually, feminine to Him."
In class we discussed why we believe women should be able to preach because we are all made in God's image and that women are not less gifted then men, and should be able to express their spiritual gift accordingly. Lewis doesn't dispute this. "No one among those who dislike the proposal is maintaining that women are less capable than men of piety, zeal, learning and whatever else seems necessary for the pastoral office." He says that women can be prophets. I think when we argued this in class we argued whether women could be preachers based on their abilities. Preachers... Everyone can be a preacher, much like Lewis says everyone can be a prophet or prophetess. The question Lewis posed was do you think women should be Reverends. Should women be at the head of the church? Should women be the leader and shepherd of a flock? I'm not sure if we answered this in class.
Lewis poses the question this way: "To us a priest is primarily a representative, a double representative, who represents us to God and God to us... We have no objection to a woman doing the first: the whole difficulty is about the second."
Lewis then goes on to talk about being sexually neuter. "But in our Christian life we must return to reality. There we are not homogeneous units, but different and complementary organs of a mystical body." This is how Lewis describes the difference between men and women. And some may say that it is a cop out. Maybe women should be leaders of the church. But, maybe there are some things we simply cannot explain. Maybe women should not be leaders of the church.
Personally, on the surface I cannot think of any reasons of why a women should not be a leader of the church. However, strong conditioning against it leads me into some sort of apprehension. I'm not sure whether I would want to answer definitively either way. The truth is simply to wonderful for me to know.
The Necessity of Chivalry
(In response to "The Necessity of Chivalry by C.S. Lewis)
In order to discuss the necessity of chivalry it is important to know how we are using the term in this discussion. C.S. Lewis admits that "the word chivalry has meant at different times a good many different things--from heavy cavalry to giving a woman a seat in a train." This means that chivalry is a broad term. Lewis describes a chivalrous man as one who "is a man of blood and iron" yet "almost maidenlike... a gentle, modest, unobtrusive man." I see his point, that a person who is a fighting man can still be humble and meek and show respect to a lady. I do not however, see a contradiction to chivalry in the sense that a Man is not be a fighting man. I find it perfectly plausible for a man to be considered chivalrous if he is not a knight who is involved in war.
Lewis states, "Let us be quite clear that the ideal is a paradox. Most of us, having grown up among the ruins of the chivalrous tradition, were taught in our youth that a bully is always a coward. Our first week at school refuted this lie, along with its corollary that a truly brave man is always gentle." I think what Lewis is saying is that we see that someone who is chivalrous cannot exist, because of who he is and who people say he is he cannot be kind. However, Lewis says that regardless of what other people tell us, personal experience has lied to us, and it is lying to us again. That what seems impossible is actually possible.
"The man who combines both characters--the knight--is a work not of nature but of art". This is a beautiful description of chivalry. I don't think that chivalry is dead. But I do believe that it has taken a back seat to new age independence. People feel that accepting help is a sign of weakness. Others feel that giving help is not their place. As a result chivalry and manners have given way to a new wave of independence among people. Something that cannot be good.
I believe people are way to defensive about image, women are too concerned with looking weak in comparison to a man, and men are too concerned with looking emotional. In the end, we should just be ourselves and let chivalry shine.
In order to discuss the necessity of chivalry it is important to know how we are using the term in this discussion. C.S. Lewis admits that "the word chivalry has meant at different times a good many different things--from heavy cavalry to giving a woman a seat in a train." This means that chivalry is a broad term. Lewis describes a chivalrous man as one who "is a man of blood and iron" yet "almost maidenlike... a gentle, modest, unobtrusive man." I see his point, that a person who is a fighting man can still be humble and meek and show respect to a lady. I do not however, see a contradiction to chivalry in the sense that a Man is not be a fighting man. I find it perfectly plausible for a man to be considered chivalrous if he is not a knight who is involved in war.
Lewis states, "Let us be quite clear that the ideal is a paradox. Most of us, having grown up among the ruins of the chivalrous tradition, were taught in our youth that a bully is always a coward. Our first week at school refuted this lie, along with its corollary that a truly brave man is always gentle." I think what Lewis is saying is that we see that someone who is chivalrous cannot exist, because of who he is and who people say he is he cannot be kind. However, Lewis says that regardless of what other people tell us, personal experience has lied to us, and it is lying to us again. That what seems impossible is actually possible.
"The man who combines both characters--the knight--is a work not of nature but of art". This is a beautiful description of chivalry. I don't think that chivalry is dead. But I do believe that it has taken a back seat to new age independence. People feel that accepting help is a sign of weakness. Others feel that giving help is not their place. As a result chivalry and manners have given way to a new wave of independence among people. Something that cannot be good.
I believe people are way to defensive about image, women are too concerned with looking weak in comparison to a man, and men are too concerned with looking emotional. In the end, we should just be ourselves and let chivalry shine.
As the Ruin Falls
(In response to "As the Ruin Falls" by C.S. Lewis)
Lewis writes a poem while his wife is dying of cancer.
"I never had a selfless thought since I was born/ I am mercenary and self-seeking through and through:" Even though we would all like to believe that we are better than this, that we are in some way humble and thoughtful of others, we are not. Because of sin our relationships with each other are tainted. We cannot be in a relationship without thinking of ourselves. This is a direct result of the fall.
"I talk of love--a scholar's parrot may talk Greek" I think this is a powerful statement. We all talk of love and a relationship as we understand it. However, we don't have a full understanding of a perfect and loving relationship. Only God has a perfect relationship with himself in his Triune self. God had a perfect relationship to man before the fall; however, the fall made it impossible for this to continue. Because we only know what a flawed sense of love is, how great will it be when we are redeemed through Christ and are reconciled to a perfect relationship with God.
It is important to remain in our faith through terrible hardships. God will use our experiences to build a deeper understanding and relationship with him.
Lewis writes a poem while his wife is dying of cancer.
"I never had a selfless thought since I was born/ I am mercenary and self-seeking through and through:" Even though we would all like to believe that we are better than this, that we are in some way humble and thoughtful of others, we are not. Because of sin our relationships with each other are tainted. We cannot be in a relationship without thinking of ourselves. This is a direct result of the fall.
"I talk of love--a scholar's parrot may talk Greek" I think this is a powerful statement. We all talk of love and a relationship as we understand it. However, we don't have a full understanding of a perfect and loving relationship. Only God has a perfect relationship with himself in his Triune self. God had a perfect relationship to man before the fall; however, the fall made it impossible for this to continue. Because we only know what a flawed sense of love is, how great will it be when we are redeemed through Christ and are reconciled to a perfect relationship with God.
It is important to remain in our faith through terrible hardships. God will use our experiences to build a deeper understanding and relationship with him.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Meditation in a Toolshed
(In response to Meditation in a Toolshed by C.S. Lewis)
This paper got me thinking a little bit about perspective. I think it was a piece to move us to think more clearly about the way we think about things. I don't believe he is arguing for us to think within the light, or to think outside the light. I think he just wants us to recognize that there are different ways to see a situation and that we should try and consider these ways when we make inferences about them.
"You can step outside one experience only by stepping inside another." I think seeing something in its true light requires us to not only see it from inside (or through the light) but from the outside (looking at the light).
As was said in class. I don't believe that there is a time where you could not think rationally about a subject at hand, however, if you only look at something rationally you miss an emotional or spiritual part that is indescribable about said thing. Such as God, he is not necessarily rational, or logically proved, yet we believe in him. If we were to only look at him rationally or logically we would miss the very relationship that brings us to love Christ and allow us eternal life through him.
This paper got me thinking a little bit about perspective. I think it was a piece to move us to think more clearly about the way we think about things. I don't believe he is arguing for us to think within the light, or to think outside the light. I think he just wants us to recognize that there are different ways to see a situation and that we should try and consider these ways when we make inferences about them.
"You can step outside one experience only by stepping inside another." I think seeing something in its true light requires us to not only see it from inside (or through the light) but from the outside (looking at the light).
As was said in class. I don't believe that there is a time where you could not think rationally about a subject at hand, however, if you only look at something rationally you miss an emotional or spiritual part that is indescribable about said thing. Such as God, he is not necessarily rational, or logically proved, yet we believe in him. If we were to only look at him rationally or logically we would miss the very relationship that brings us to love Christ and allow us eternal life through him.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Guest Speaker
I deeply enjoyed the talk with our guest speaker. I enjoyed the correlation between Bible verses and direct applications to our life. The analogies were helpful and applicable. I wished we could have had more time with him. I enjoyed the sticker that he showed us with the man on his knees. I believe that this is the only way we can truly come to God, in prayer.
What more can be said that hasn't already been said?
What more can be said that hasn't already been said?
The Inner Ring
(In response to The Inner Ring except by C.S. Lewis)
The quest for the inner ring appears to be a meaningless runaround that is descriptive of all our lives. We are constantly caught up with proving ourselves, or having some sort of approval. We all seek glory, or a place to fit in, a place that makes us feel superior to others, a sense of accomplishment.
I believe that every person who lives has at one point questioned the meaning of their existence. They seek to find some meaning in life. Regardless of their religious beliefs we are all on a journey to find meaning. I believe that God has placed this void among us. We as humans find ourselves searching for something on this world to fill that void. However, there cannot be anything that fills the void, there cannot be anything to make us feel completely accepted, nothing to give us perfect joy, and nothing to completely suffice our hunger for happiness. We search the ins and the outs of the world, looking in every dark dank corner, and every lighted room. Still we find nothing. This is what allows us to know that we are not made for this world. If we were made for this world, for this finite existence, then we would be able to find something that satisfies these appetites. We search among our things and friends to find meaning, to find a sense of worth that can never be found. C. S. Lewis talks of this endless pursuit to an inner ring. Once a ring has been entered it loses its appeal, we seek yet another ring, an endless pursuit for emptiness.
"In the whole of your life as you now remember it, has the desire to be on the right side of that invisible line ever prompted you to any act or word on which, in the cold small hours of a wakeful night, you can look back with satisfaction?" C. S. Lewis poses this question rhetorically because he knows that non of us can answer in the affirmative.
"Until you conquer the fear of being an outsider, an outsider you will remain." It is this that drives our search for fulfillment. We desperately want to be included; however, our desperate desire will lead us nowhere, and it is not until we give up this desire that we can in fact be included in the Kingdom of Heaven. It is not until we give up the notion of ourselves that we enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
C.S. Lewis goes on to speak of the difference between "the search for the inner ring" and friendship. "But the difference is that the secrecy is accidental, and its exclusiveness a by-product, and no one was led thither by the lure of the esoteric: for it is only four or five people who like one another meeting to do things that they like. This is friendship."
The quest for the inner ring appears to be a meaningless runaround that is descriptive of all our lives. We are constantly caught up with proving ourselves, or having some sort of approval. We all seek glory, or a place to fit in, a place that makes us feel superior to others, a sense of accomplishment.
I believe that every person who lives has at one point questioned the meaning of their existence. They seek to find some meaning in life. Regardless of their religious beliefs we are all on a journey to find meaning. I believe that God has placed this void among us. We as humans find ourselves searching for something on this world to fill that void. However, there cannot be anything that fills the void, there cannot be anything to make us feel completely accepted, nothing to give us perfect joy, and nothing to completely suffice our hunger for happiness. We search the ins and the outs of the world, looking in every dark dank corner, and every lighted room. Still we find nothing. This is what allows us to know that we are not made for this world. If we were made for this world, for this finite existence, then we would be able to find something that satisfies these appetites. We search among our things and friends to find meaning, to find a sense of worth that can never be found. C. S. Lewis talks of this endless pursuit to an inner ring. Once a ring has been entered it loses its appeal, we seek yet another ring, an endless pursuit for emptiness.
"In the whole of your life as you now remember it, has the desire to be on the right side of that invisible line ever prompted you to any act or word on which, in the cold small hours of a wakeful night, you can look back with satisfaction?" C. S. Lewis poses this question rhetorically because he knows that non of us can answer in the affirmative.
"Until you conquer the fear of being an outsider, an outsider you will remain." It is this that drives our search for fulfillment. We desperately want to be included; however, our desperate desire will lead us nowhere, and it is not until we give up this desire that we can in fact be included in the Kingdom of Heaven. It is not until we give up the notion of ourselves that we enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
C.S. Lewis goes on to speak of the difference between "the search for the inner ring" and friendship. "But the difference is that the secrecy is accidental, and its exclusiveness a by-product, and no one was led thither by the lure of the esoteric: for it is only four or five people who like one another meeting to do things that they like. This is friendship."
Thursday, March 20, 2008
The Fall
(In response to Chapter 3 "The Fall" in Engaging God's World by C. Plantinga Jr.)
This chapter was particularly interesting and deepened my thoughts in terms of where sin comes from. Because sin has so perversed our lives my struggle is with preventing sin, and not searching out its source. Plantinga analyzes the origin of sin. He says that it cannot be from God because not only would that be against his nature, but God wouldn't be a loving god if he caused his creation to sin. There would be no justice or salvation, something that he promises and fulfills through Christ. The interesting thing is that he says that Sin doesn't come from Satan either. Satan doesn't cause us to sin, rather he only presents to us an opportunity to sin, or tempts us to sin. He doesn't provide the causation for sinning. This is interesting when you think about it because if Satan cannot cause you to sin he is powerless. His power is that of persuasion and not of a controlling demon. This is something that I find comfort in.
I also liked the analysis of sinners. Sin causes us to become perverted and that perverted person lacks judgment. This lack of judgment brings the person to more sin. This is a cycle that cannot be overcome even though we may want it to. We are born into original sin, with a proclivity to do that sinning. It is only through the grace of God and the salvation that he brings to us on the cross that we can overcome the grave and live eternally with him.
Good insights by Plantinga, I enjoyed this chapter deeply and enjoyed seeing things from a newly presented perspective.
This chapter was particularly interesting and deepened my thoughts in terms of where sin comes from. Because sin has so perversed our lives my struggle is with preventing sin, and not searching out its source. Plantinga analyzes the origin of sin. He says that it cannot be from God because not only would that be against his nature, but God wouldn't be a loving god if he caused his creation to sin. There would be no justice or salvation, something that he promises and fulfills through Christ. The interesting thing is that he says that Sin doesn't come from Satan either. Satan doesn't cause us to sin, rather he only presents to us an opportunity to sin, or tempts us to sin. He doesn't provide the causation for sinning. This is interesting when you think about it because if Satan cannot cause you to sin he is powerless. His power is that of persuasion and not of a controlling demon. This is something that I find comfort in.
I also liked the analysis of sinners. Sin causes us to become perverted and that perverted person lacks judgment. This lack of judgment brings the person to more sin. This is a cycle that cannot be overcome even though we may want it to. We are born into original sin, with a proclivity to do that sinning. It is only through the grace of God and the salvation that he brings to us on the cross that we can overcome the grave and live eternally with him.
Good insights by Plantinga, I enjoyed this chapter deeply and enjoyed seeing things from a newly presented perspective.
Phillia
(In response to "The Four Loves" chapter 2: "Philia" Friendship by C.S. Lewis)
C.S. Lewis talks of friendship from several different viewpoints in this chapter. He states that it is the least natural of loves. He goes on to say that friendship is not a necessity to life. One can hardly argue that we need friends in order to live and go about our daily lives, yet at the same time can any of us imagine navigating the troubles of this world alone? Certainly friendships help us through our lives and provide a support system that is not found elsewhere. Oh ya, a support system like the church. God calls us to be in a community of believers, and I think in a sense he calls us to surround ourselves with good friends. Friends are people who can influence us immensely. Due to this fact we must be careful in choosing our friends. I am a friend of God, he knows my name. We must use Christ's example of how to befriend those around us and apply it to our relationships.
I found it interesting when he talked about how friends meet... that they don't set out to meet or become friends but that it just happens. He says that those who set out to make friends have no friends. Because friendship is not something you can create, it is some shared focal point that you have in common. Some goal or direction that you are both seeking that brings you together and allows you to connect on a level that others cannot.
I found it interesting when Lewis said that: "The very condition of having Friends is that we should want something else besides Friends." It means that we as humans are not here for friendships, or relationships that do not last and that we are not here for eros, friendships closely resembling our relationship to God. What we are here for is to love God, and seek AGAPE--the greatest of loves.
Quotes:
"We meet like sovereign princes of independent states, abroad, on neutral ground, freed from our contexts."
"But in Friendship, being free of all that, we think we have chosen our peers. In reality, a few years' difference in the dates of our births, a few more miles between certain houses, the choice of one university instead of another, posting to different regiments, the accident of a topic being raised or not raised at a first meeting--any of these chances might have kept us apart."
"Man, pleas thy Maker, and be merry, / And give not for this world a cherry."
--Dunbar
C.S. Lewis talks of friendship from several different viewpoints in this chapter. He states that it is the least natural of loves. He goes on to say that friendship is not a necessity to life. One can hardly argue that we need friends in order to live and go about our daily lives, yet at the same time can any of us imagine navigating the troubles of this world alone? Certainly friendships help us through our lives and provide a support system that is not found elsewhere. Oh ya, a support system like the church. God calls us to be in a community of believers, and I think in a sense he calls us to surround ourselves with good friends. Friends are people who can influence us immensely. Due to this fact we must be careful in choosing our friends. I am a friend of God, he knows my name. We must use Christ's example of how to befriend those around us and apply it to our relationships.
I found it interesting when he talked about how friends meet... that they don't set out to meet or become friends but that it just happens. He says that those who set out to make friends have no friends. Because friendship is not something you can create, it is some shared focal point that you have in common. Some goal or direction that you are both seeking that brings you together and allows you to connect on a level that others cannot.
I found it interesting when Lewis said that: "The very condition of having Friends is that we should want something else besides Friends." It means that we as humans are not here for friendships, or relationships that do not last and that we are not here for eros, friendships closely resembling our relationship to God. What we are here for is to love God, and seek AGAPE--the greatest of loves.
Quotes:
"We meet like sovereign princes of independent states, abroad, on neutral ground, freed from our contexts."
"But in Friendship, being free of all that, we think we have chosen our peers. In reality, a few years' difference in the dates of our births, a few more miles between certain houses, the choice of one university instead of another, posting to different regiments, the accident of a topic being raised or not raised at a first meeting--any of these chances might have kept us apart."
"Man, pleas thy Maker, and be merry, / And give not for this world a cherry."
--Dunbar
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Eros
(In response to chapter 3 of The Four Loves by C.S. Lewis and 1 Corinthians 13)
If I do anything but have not love, then I have nothing. "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails" (1 Corinthians 13:4-8a) If we take this definition of what love is, and we take what we know about God--that God IS love-- then we can use this as a definition of who God is. God does not keep any records of wrongs, he always protects us, and he never ever fails. The Bible has presented us with a perfect definition of what love is. 1 Corinthians 13 describes what we should be looking for in a relationship, this is what we desire, and should strive for. We must keep this in mind while we read and discern the meaning of C.S. Lewis's The Four Loves.
"Very often what comes first is simply a delighted pre-ocupation with the Beloved," I believe this fits into a working definition of what love is in the fact that it is first an unexplainable joy rather than a deep love that develops first.
Lewis goes on to develop a term called Eros. This term I believe describes what love should be. Lewis says that "Sexual desire, without Eros, wants it (my emphasis), the thing in itself, Eros wants the Beloved." I believe that this refers to sex as an object, or desiring the person as an object to perform a task, rather than desiring the person in order to have a dynamic relationship. We must be careful not to become creatures driven by sexual desires. "We must not attempt to find an absolute in the flesh."
I did find it interesting to hear the take on nakedness. He made reference that naked was the past action of naking, meaning to become naked. If this is true then man is not meant to be naked, rather he had to change his state in order to become naked. When we were created we were created naked. However, this term, no the realization of our nakedness came into being until after the fall. So, before the fall we were perfectly right to be naked, but after the fall we have become changed beings and therefore must accommodate our change and cloth ourselves.
This reading shed light on one way and description of love. It was interesting to read. It makes me look forward to what is to come, and what can be realized in life.
If I do anything but have not love, then I have nothing. "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails" (1 Corinthians 13:4-8a) If we take this definition of what love is, and we take what we know about God--that God IS love-- then we can use this as a definition of who God is. God does not keep any records of wrongs, he always protects us, and he never ever fails. The Bible has presented us with a perfect definition of what love is. 1 Corinthians 13 describes what we should be looking for in a relationship, this is what we desire, and should strive for. We must keep this in mind while we read and discern the meaning of C.S. Lewis's The Four Loves.
"Very often what comes first is simply a delighted pre-ocupation with the Beloved," I believe this fits into a working definition of what love is in the fact that it is first an unexplainable joy rather than a deep love that develops first.
Lewis goes on to develop a term called Eros. This term I believe describes what love should be. Lewis says that "Sexual desire, without Eros, wants it (my emphasis), the thing in itself, Eros wants the Beloved." I believe that this refers to sex as an object, or desiring the person as an object to perform a task, rather than desiring the person in order to have a dynamic relationship. We must be careful not to become creatures driven by sexual desires. "We must not attempt to find an absolute in the flesh."
I did find it interesting to hear the take on nakedness. He made reference that naked was the past action of naking, meaning to become naked. If this is true then man is not meant to be naked, rather he had to change his state in order to become naked. When we were created we were created naked. However, this term, no the realization of our nakedness came into being until after the fall. So, before the fall we were perfectly right to be naked, but after the fall we have become changed beings and therefore must accommodate our change and cloth ourselves.
This reading shed light on one way and description of love. It was interesting to read. It makes me look forward to what is to come, and what can be realized in life.
Monday, March 3, 2008
The Sermon and the Lunch
(In response to "The Sermon and the Lunch" by C.S. Lewis)
I can somewhat understand the position of Lewis and of the youth not listening to someone who they know is a hypocrite and is trying to portray themselves in a perfect light. Teachers, Ministers, parents, and leaders should be careful with what they say and be careful not to contradict their words with their actions. They must also be able to communicate to their audience that they are themselves fallible due to the fall and therefore they themselves are not the model to strive after. Only God, Jesus Christ the incarnate, can be our true example.
I do however feel that any person who attempts to teach someone moral values is himself a hypocrite. With the exception of Jesus we are all sinful by nature and therefore cannot be perfect in our teaching and actions. We can however be striving towards that perfection, trying to be in the image of God. As Matthew 5:48 says, "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." This is our goal, while non of us can achieve this we must still strive for it.
"The real minds of the young people have at last been called into action. They talk fiercely, quickly, contemptuously. They have facts and logic on their side. " This quote makes me proud as a young person. This is the first time that I can think of that the youth are talked about in a positive light.
"Since the Fall no organization or way of life whatever has a natural tendency to go right." This cannot be used as our excuse to do wrong, rather it should only be used to keep us out of great depression and deep troughs in our lives.
I can somewhat understand the position of Lewis and of the youth not listening to someone who they know is a hypocrite and is trying to portray themselves in a perfect light. Teachers, Ministers, parents, and leaders should be careful with what they say and be careful not to contradict their words with their actions. They must also be able to communicate to their audience that they are themselves fallible due to the fall and therefore they themselves are not the model to strive after. Only God, Jesus Christ the incarnate, can be our true example.
I do however feel that any person who attempts to teach someone moral values is himself a hypocrite. With the exception of Jesus we are all sinful by nature and therefore cannot be perfect in our teaching and actions. We can however be striving towards that perfection, trying to be in the image of God. As Matthew 5:48 says, "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." This is our goal, while non of us can achieve this we must still strive for it.
"The real minds of the young people have at last been called into action. They talk fiercely, quickly, contemptuously. They have facts and logic on their side. " This quote makes me proud as a young person. This is the first time that I can think of that the youth are talked about in a positive light.
"Since the Fall no organization or way of life whatever has a natural tendency to go right." This cannot be used as our excuse to do wrong, rather it should only be used to keep us out of great depression and deep troughs in our lives.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Vocation
(In response to chapter 5 "Vocation in the Kingdom of God" from Engaging God's World by Plantinga Jr.)
I enjoyed the chapter on Vocation by Plantinga. I felt that it reinforced Lewis's piece on learning in wartime. It outlined for yet another time that education is not to prepare us for a job but to prepare us for kingdom work within the Kingdom of God. "The full value of your education is that it will help you find and prepare for your vocation--which, as we've just seen, is much bigger than any particular occupation."
As a political science major I enjoyed the quote by John Calvin, "civil authority is a calling, not only holy and lawful before God, but also the most sacred and by far the most honorable of all callings in the whole life of mortal men." Especially because I am seeking a career in public service.
Pertaining to the argument between Christian and public education I agreed with his view. I believe that it is easier to learn within a Christian community, where spiritual growth is encouraged and cultivated. I also believe that it is possible to do these things at a public institution; however, I believe that it is much harder because there is not a strong sense of community of believers at a public university. While either school may have believers and unbelievers I believe that it is a better environment for the cultivation of spirituality among young Christians.
(This post is shorter because I feel that we have dealt with this topic and covered it completely.)
I enjoyed the chapter on Vocation by Plantinga. I felt that it reinforced Lewis's piece on learning in wartime. It outlined for yet another time that education is not to prepare us for a job but to prepare us for kingdom work within the Kingdom of God. "The full value of your education is that it will help you find and prepare for your vocation--which, as we've just seen, is much bigger than any particular occupation."
As a political science major I enjoyed the quote by John Calvin, "civil authority is a calling, not only holy and lawful before God, but also the most sacred and by far the most honorable of all callings in the whole life of mortal men." Especially because I am seeking a career in public service.
Pertaining to the argument between Christian and public education I agreed with his view. I believe that it is easier to learn within a Christian community, where spiritual growth is encouraged and cultivated. I also believe that it is possible to do these things at a public institution; however, I believe that it is much harder because there is not a strong sense of community of believers at a public university. While either school may have believers and unbelievers I believe that it is a better environment for the cultivation of spirituality among young Christians.
(This post is shorter because I feel that we have dealt with this topic and covered it completely.)
Monday, February 25, 2008
Learning in War-Time
(In response to "Learning in War-Time", a sermon preached in the Church of St. Mary the Virgin, Oxford, Autum, 1939)
Lewis poses the Question that I believe many early Christians struggle with, "how it is right, or even psychologically possible, for creatures who are every moment advancing either to heaven or to hell, to spend any fraction of the little time allowed them in this world on such comparative trivialities as literature or art, mathematics or biology." This also goes along with the immanent return of Jesus Christ. This question can be answered several ways and Lewis looks at a few of them. If we live our lives only seeking those things that we deem sacred then we are limiting our lives to only those things that we as humans understand as within God. All of God's creation is wonderful and "everything under the sun" (Ecclesiastes) can be done to the honor and glory of God.
"Human culture has always had to exist under the shadow of something infinitely more important than itself. If men had postponed the search for knowledge and beauty until they were secure the search would never have begun." If we were always waiting for the conditions to be perfect we would have never started anything in this world. If we were constantly living our lives in the knowledge that Christ's return is immanent then we will miss the reason we are here on earth for now; for the honor and glory of God, to be a living sacrifice of worship to God.
"How can you be so frivolous and selfish as to think about anything but the salvation of human souls?" This question can be best answered by John Calvin who believes that everything can be done to the honor of God and therefore we should seek perfection in all aspects of our lives. Calvin would take it as far to say, if we are not writing perfect English and are not seeking to better ourselves then we are not living to the honor of God and are not good Christians. There is also the debate of what is sacred and what is not. I believe that everything is created by God and therefore everything is religious or sacred. Everything that you do in your life can be done in two ways. Either for the glory of God, or not. Therefore, everything you do can be sacred or not sacred based on your motives for doing so. Lewis puts it simply, "And every duty is a religious duty, and our obligation to perform every duty is therefore absolute." The Bible puts it eloquently, "Whether ye eat or drink or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God."
So why don't we all just abandon our jobs and go to work in the church? "A mole must dig to the glory of God and a cock must crow. We are members of one body, but differentiated members, each with his own vocation." We are all made for a specific purpose in the kingdom of God.
Lewis goes on to warn us several enemies that we have along our search for vocation and knowledge. Each appears rather docile at first but at further investigation can lead us into temptation and a sheltered outlook on life. They are:
Excitement
Frustration
Fear
A few quotes that I enjoyed from the passage:
"War makes death real to us: and that would have been regarded as one of its blessings by most of the great Christians of the past. They thought it good for us to be always aware of our mortality. I am inclined to think they were right."
"If we thought we were building up a heaven on earth, if we looked for something that would turn the present world from a place of pilgrimage into a permanent city satisfying the soul of man, we are disillusioned, and not a moment too soon. But if we thought that for some souls, and at some times, the life of learning, humbly offered to God, was, in its own small way, one of the appointed approaches to the Divine reality and the Divine beauty which we hope to enjoy hereafter, we can think so still."
Lewis poses the Question that I believe many early Christians struggle with, "how it is right, or even psychologically possible, for creatures who are every moment advancing either to heaven or to hell, to spend any fraction of the little time allowed them in this world on such comparative trivialities as literature or art, mathematics or biology." This also goes along with the immanent return of Jesus Christ. This question can be answered several ways and Lewis looks at a few of them. If we live our lives only seeking those things that we deem sacred then we are limiting our lives to only those things that we as humans understand as within God. All of God's creation is wonderful and "everything under the sun" (Ecclesiastes) can be done to the honor and glory of God.
"Human culture has always had to exist under the shadow of something infinitely more important than itself. If men had postponed the search for knowledge and beauty until they were secure the search would never have begun." If we were always waiting for the conditions to be perfect we would have never started anything in this world. If we were constantly living our lives in the knowledge that Christ's return is immanent then we will miss the reason we are here on earth for now; for the honor and glory of God, to be a living sacrifice of worship to God.
"How can you be so frivolous and selfish as to think about anything but the salvation of human souls?" This question can be best answered by John Calvin who believes that everything can be done to the honor of God and therefore we should seek perfection in all aspects of our lives. Calvin would take it as far to say, if we are not writing perfect English and are not seeking to better ourselves then we are not living to the honor of God and are not good Christians. There is also the debate of what is sacred and what is not. I believe that everything is created by God and therefore everything is religious or sacred. Everything that you do in your life can be done in two ways. Either for the glory of God, or not. Therefore, everything you do can be sacred or not sacred based on your motives for doing so. Lewis puts it simply, "And every duty is a religious duty, and our obligation to perform every duty is therefore absolute." The Bible puts it eloquently, "Whether ye eat or drink or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God."
So why don't we all just abandon our jobs and go to work in the church? "A mole must dig to the glory of God and a cock must crow. We are members of one body, but differentiated members, each with his own vocation." We are all made for a specific purpose in the kingdom of God.
Lewis goes on to warn us several enemies that we have along our search for vocation and knowledge. Each appears rather docile at first but at further investigation can lead us into temptation and a sheltered outlook on life. They are:
Excitement
Frustration
Fear
A few quotes that I enjoyed from the passage:
"War makes death real to us: and that would have been regarded as one of its blessings by most of the great Christians of the past. They thought it good for us to be always aware of our mortality. I am inclined to think they were right."
"If we thought we were building up a heaven on earth, if we looked for something that would turn the present world from a place of pilgrimage into a permanent city satisfying the soul of man, we are disillusioned, and not a moment too soon. But if we thought that for some souls, and at some times, the life of learning, humbly offered to God, was, in its own small way, one of the appointed approaches to the Divine reality and the Divine beauty which we hope to enjoy hereafter, we can think so still."
Letter IX
(In response to Letter IX of the Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis)
This letter furthers the discussion between Wormwood and Screwtape as to how to manipulate humans within their trough periods. A part that I specifically found interesting is when Screwtape advises Wormwood to use pleasure withing trough periods. "I know we have won many a soul through pleasure. All the same, it is His invention, not ours. He made the pleasures: all our research so far has not enabled us to produce one." This furthers the belief that God created everything, and it is only through the fall, mans first trough, and through the manipulation of the Devil that these perfect pleasures are perverted and misconstrued to deceive us into committing another sin.
I also thought interesting the point of trying to persuade the subject that his trough was permanent, even though he has experienced several troughs and crests. It was still imperative to make them believe that it was permanent, and because I believe we as humans are all susceptible to this it can only be by the grace of God that we are saved from this belief that our trough is permanent. It also suggests keeping the subject away from "experienced Christians" those who might be able to see through the deception and be able to pull one up out of a trough. I believe that this is represented by the church and is one of the main reasons that we feel a constant pull to not attend church. When we feel this persuasion we must know that it is the devil working against us to distract us.
We so commonly hear that "everything in moderation" is ok. However, it is true that everything in moderation is worse than nothing at all. Everything in moderation makes our faith void. Our faith is the opposite of everything in moderation and therefore should not fall victim to this common mantra.
Another tactic of the devil is to persuade people that what they are in is just a phase. By making the person think that it is just a phase means that the person has given up on trying to fix it and believes that it will work itself out. Something that most certainly will not happen if we are in a trough. Phases are things that cease to exist out of natural occurrence. Our troughs cease to exist because they are acted upon by the Holy Spirits intercession, by the Church, or by a realization through the word of God. Troughs are not phases and will not work themselves out. It is therefore imperative that we not treat our sins as phases and that we seek to remedy every sin that we commit against God and others.
This letter furthers the discussion between Wormwood and Screwtape as to how to manipulate humans within their trough periods. A part that I specifically found interesting is when Screwtape advises Wormwood to use pleasure withing trough periods. "I know we have won many a soul through pleasure. All the same, it is His invention, not ours. He made the pleasures: all our research so far has not enabled us to produce one." This furthers the belief that God created everything, and it is only through the fall, mans first trough, and through the manipulation of the Devil that these perfect pleasures are perverted and misconstrued to deceive us into committing another sin.
I also thought interesting the point of trying to persuade the subject that his trough was permanent, even though he has experienced several troughs and crests. It was still imperative to make them believe that it was permanent, and because I believe we as humans are all susceptible to this it can only be by the grace of God that we are saved from this belief that our trough is permanent. It also suggests keeping the subject away from "experienced Christians" those who might be able to see through the deception and be able to pull one up out of a trough. I believe that this is represented by the church and is one of the main reasons that we feel a constant pull to not attend church. When we feel this persuasion we must know that it is the devil working against us to distract us.
We so commonly hear that "everything in moderation" is ok. However, it is true that everything in moderation is worse than nothing at all. Everything in moderation makes our faith void. Our faith is the opposite of everything in moderation and therefore should not fall victim to this common mantra.
Another tactic of the devil is to persuade people that what they are in is just a phase. By making the person think that it is just a phase means that the person has given up on trying to fix it and believes that it will work itself out. Something that most certainly will not happen if we are in a trough. Phases are things that cease to exist out of natural occurrence. Our troughs cease to exist because they are acted upon by the Holy Spirits intercession, by the Church, or by a realization through the word of God. Troughs are not phases and will not work themselves out. It is therefore imperative that we not treat our sins as phases and that we seek to remedy every sin that we commit against God and others.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Letter VIII
(In response to Letter VIII of the Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis)
"Their nearest approach to constancy, therefore, is undulation—the repeated return to a level from which they repeatedly fall back, a series of troughs and peaks." When I read this the first time I wasn't exactly sure what it meant. After reading it through a few times I am fairly sure that it refers to the fact that within a fallen world the only hope of consistency we have is knowing that there is nothing constant. We can count on the fact that we can't count on anything. Because we are body and soul we know that we are constantly yearning to fulfill our spiritual desires, however, the body aspect of our humanity brings us back down. This is the only thing in life that we can count on. This is not encouraging, but if we are ready for it we can find comfort in that expectation. Lewis also points out the fact that because we are destined to fall back into a trough due to the law of undulation we will therefore find the need pray to God, through our prayers God finds a way to bring us closer to him. "Hence the prayers offered in the state of dryness are those which please Him best." ( I like to take the series of troughs and crests that Lewis describes as a two steps forward one step back approach. We may fall back but we are still moving forward--towards a closer spiritual relationship with God)
"But He never allows this state of affairs to last long. Sooner or later He withdraws, if not in fact, at least from their conscious experience, all those supports and incentives. He leaves the creature to stand up on its own legs—to carry out from the will alone duties which have lost all relish."
I'm not exactly sure how this quote relates to Lewis's beliefs. I struggle to believe that Lewis believes that God would withdrawal himself. Maybe Lewis has a deistic view of God, or maybe I'm reading it wrong. I find it hard to believe that God withdrawals himself from us. This goes into the free-will predestination debate. Regardless, any view that has God withdrawing himself diminishes my view of God, it lessens the personal relationship that I seek with him as well as creates a deistic view.
What are your thoughts? Is Lewis a diest?
"Their nearest approach to constancy, therefore, is undulation—the repeated return to a level from which they repeatedly fall back, a series of troughs and peaks." When I read this the first time I wasn't exactly sure what it meant. After reading it through a few times I am fairly sure that it refers to the fact that within a fallen world the only hope of consistency we have is knowing that there is nothing constant. We can count on the fact that we can't count on anything. Because we are body and soul we know that we are constantly yearning to fulfill our spiritual desires, however, the body aspect of our humanity brings us back down. This is the only thing in life that we can count on. This is not encouraging, but if we are ready for it we can find comfort in that expectation. Lewis also points out the fact that because we are destined to fall back into a trough due to the law of undulation we will therefore find the need pray to God, through our prayers God finds a way to bring us closer to him. "Hence the prayers offered in the state of dryness are those which please Him best." ( I like to take the series of troughs and crests that Lewis describes as a two steps forward one step back approach. We may fall back but we are still moving forward--towards a closer spiritual relationship with God)
"But He never allows this state of affairs to last long. Sooner or later He withdraws, if not in fact, at least from their conscious experience, all those supports and incentives. He leaves the creature to stand up on its own legs—to carry out from the will alone duties which have lost all relish."
I'm not exactly sure how this quote relates to Lewis's beliefs. I struggle to believe that Lewis believes that God would withdrawal himself. Maybe Lewis has a deistic view of God, or maybe I'm reading it wrong. I find it hard to believe that God withdrawals himself from us. This goes into the free-will predestination debate. Regardless, any view that has God withdrawing himself diminishes my view of God, it lessens the personal relationship that I seek with him as well as creates a deistic view.
What are your thoughts? Is Lewis a diest?
Monday, February 18, 2008
Reason, Truth, Material Needs and Science
(In Response to "Reason, Truth, Material Needs and Science Fundamental Principles for Seeking Direction" by C.S. Lewis)
"The trouble about argument is that it moves the whole struggle onto the Enemy's own ground. He can argue too; whereas in really practical propaganda of the kind I am suggesting He has been shown for centuries to be greatly the inferior of Our Father Below."
When I encountered this portion of the letter it made me think. So often we think that as Christians we are on the irrational, illogical side of things. We feel that if we had to "prove" our religion that we couldn't actually do it because our religion requires faith, it requires the belief in something that is impossible to prove. When this came up that the little devil did not want to argue with us because we can argue to it struck me. So often we just take the poor me role when people ask us to account for our faith. This gave me great hope in the knowledge that I can argue too. I may not be able to argue to a conversion, but the mere fact that I'm in the arena of arguing gives some validity to my cause.
This was my first taste of reading the Screwtape Letters and I enjoyed it. It was interesting to see our daily struggle from another point of view. It further displays how vulnerable we are to temptation in this world and how easy it is to slip up. Our enemy does not have to persuade us that God is false, they don't have to get us to change our beliefs; they merely need to distract us and keep our minds off of the things that make our faith an integral part of our lives. It really makes you think of all the times you are being tempted and not even knowing it. Everything can be used against you and it is only by the grace of God that we are still in the game.
"The trouble about argument is that it moves the whole struggle onto the Enemy's own ground. He can argue too; whereas in really practical propaganda of the kind I am suggesting He has been shown for centuries to be greatly the inferior of Our Father Below."
When I encountered this portion of the letter it made me think. So often we think that as Christians we are on the irrational, illogical side of things. We feel that if we had to "prove" our religion that we couldn't actually do it because our religion requires faith, it requires the belief in something that is impossible to prove. When this came up that the little devil did not want to argue with us because we can argue to it struck me. So often we just take the poor me role when people ask us to account for our faith. This gave me great hope in the knowledge that I can argue too. I may not be able to argue to a conversion, but the mere fact that I'm in the arena of arguing gives some validity to my cause.
This was my first taste of reading the Screwtape Letters and I enjoyed it. It was interesting to see our daily struggle from another point of view. It further displays how vulnerable we are to temptation in this world and how easy it is to slip up. Our enemy does not have to persuade us that God is false, they don't have to get us to change our beliefs; they merely need to distract us and keep our minds off of the things that make our faith an integral part of our lives. It really makes you think of all the times you are being tempted and not even knowing it. Everything can be used against you and it is only by the grace of God that we are still in the game.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Show and Tell
(In response to the assignment of show and tell, René Descartes Discourse on Method IV)
Link: http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/descartes/descartes_method.html
Descartes, born in the late 1500's, is very important philosopher to the Christians. In Descartes Discourses on Method sets out prove the existence of God. He realizes, however, that in order to do so he cannot base his reasoning on anything of this world because there are mistakes in everything. Even if there is a possibility of perfection there is still possibility of failure and because of this he must resolve to strip himself of all modern knowledge as well as the senses. The first three discourses on method are an outline on how Descartes will set up his quest for knowledge of his own uninfluenced by the senses and mans fallacies.
In the 4th discourse Descartes starts his experience. He strips himself to only his mind and not his senses. This is where the phrase "I think, Therefore I am" comes from. So, Descartes proves that he exists because he is thinking. He then says, "I was led to inquire whence I had learned to think of something more perfect than myself; and I clearly recognized that I must hold this notion from some nature which in reality was more perfect." He talks about how he can look out into nature and know that he is better than the sky, or a tree, because he is capable of things that they are not. He also knows that the notion of these things were not inherent in his mind because he has seen them. However, he has not seen this perfect being, there is nothing that suggests that one exists; yet still there is a notion in his mind that a being more powerful than him exists. This notion can only be explained in one way. That there is a God. Something that had to begin, something that had to have placed the notion in all that is living, that has placed his imprint on all of nature and on all of his creation.
The Discourse on Method IV is powerful in the sense that Descartes stripped himself of everything that he knew and yet still came up with a concept of a God. This speaks volumes to us as humans and especially to us as Christians.
I encourage all of you to go to the link and read the Discourse on Method IV, if you cannot read all of it at least read the 4th paragraph where this post speaks of. Hopefully it will mean as much to you as it has meant to me.
Link: http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/descartes/descartes_method.html
Descartes, born in the late 1500's, is very important philosopher to the Christians. In Descartes Discourses on Method sets out prove the existence of God. He realizes, however, that in order to do so he cannot base his reasoning on anything of this world because there are mistakes in everything. Even if there is a possibility of perfection there is still possibility of failure and because of this he must resolve to strip himself of all modern knowledge as well as the senses. The first three discourses on method are an outline on how Descartes will set up his quest for knowledge of his own uninfluenced by the senses and mans fallacies.
In the 4th discourse Descartes starts his experience. He strips himself to only his mind and not his senses. This is where the phrase "I think, Therefore I am" comes from. So, Descartes proves that he exists because he is thinking. He then says, "I was led to inquire whence I had learned to think of something more perfect than myself; and I clearly recognized that I must hold this notion from some nature which in reality was more perfect." He talks about how he can look out into nature and know that he is better than the sky, or a tree, because he is capable of things that they are not. He also knows that the notion of these things were not inherent in his mind because he has seen them. However, he has not seen this perfect being, there is nothing that suggests that one exists; yet still there is a notion in his mind that a being more powerful than him exists. This notion can only be explained in one way. That there is a God. Something that had to begin, something that had to have placed the notion in all that is living, that has placed his imprint on all of nature and on all of his creation.
The Discourse on Method IV is powerful in the sense that Descartes stripped himself of everything that he knew and yet still came up with a concept of a God. This speaks volumes to us as humans and especially to us as Christians.
I encourage all of you to go to the link and read the Discourse on Method IV, if you cannot read all of it at least read the 4th paragraph where this post speaks of. Hopefully it will mean as much to you as it has meant to me.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Our English Syllabus
(In Response to "Our English Syllabus" by C.S. Lewis)
The topic of this essay is one that I feel every student should read. Not only every student but every human. This essay embodies the theme that was projected to us in prelude. That we are not here to prepare ourselves for a vocation but to be educated. Education in the sense of not knowing facts and formulas but expanding our minds and learning to think and write critically. We must not train ones mind what it must think but rather how to think for itself. "You see at once that education is essentially for freemen and vocational training for slaves."
Lewis is trying to open up the minds of his students and show to them that they are not here to learn specific facts or trades but to be guided along their own personal journey of learning. That they have already developed a love for learning and that they are merely in a community of people seeking to learn more, guiding each other where each has insight. "The student is, or ought to be, a young man who is already beginning to follow learning for its own sake, and who attaches himself to an older student, not precisely to be taught, but to pick up what he can."
Lewis expands his idea by explaining that "learning is not education; but it can be used educationally by those who do not propose to pursue learning all their lives." Education is much more than learning for four years and saying you are done; rather, education is a means of cultivating that love of learning and developing that into the need to constantly yearn for knowledge.
I feel that this might properly be remedied with the exclusion of grades. When grades are present people learn the material in order to meet a requirement. They don't learn for the joy, they learn out of necessity, with high grades come better job opportunities and so forth. With grades our journey of learning becomes an education that can be completed in four years. Without grades one could learn for the sake of learning and bettering ones self, they could grasp concepts rather than committing insignificant facts to memory. With grades students are more likely to learn in order to pass a test, where education should be learning to better oneself and fulfill the thirst for knowledge.
"It is time you [we] learned to wrestle with nature for yourself [ourselves]."
The topic of this essay is one that I feel every student should read. Not only every student but every human. This essay embodies the theme that was projected to us in prelude. That we are not here to prepare ourselves for a vocation but to be educated. Education in the sense of not knowing facts and formulas but expanding our minds and learning to think and write critically. We must not train ones mind what it must think but rather how to think for itself. "You see at once that education is essentially for freemen and vocational training for slaves."
Lewis is trying to open up the minds of his students and show to them that they are not here to learn specific facts or trades but to be guided along their own personal journey of learning. That they have already developed a love for learning and that they are merely in a community of people seeking to learn more, guiding each other where each has insight. "The student is, or ought to be, a young man who is already beginning to follow learning for its own sake, and who attaches himself to an older student, not precisely to be taught, but to pick up what he can."
Lewis expands his idea by explaining that "learning is not education; but it can be used educationally by those who do not propose to pursue learning all their lives." Education is much more than learning for four years and saying you are done; rather, education is a means of cultivating that love of learning and developing that into the need to constantly yearn for knowledge.
I feel that this might properly be remedied with the exclusion of grades. When grades are present people learn the material in order to meet a requirement. They don't learn for the joy, they learn out of necessity, with high grades come better job opportunities and so forth. With grades our journey of learning becomes an education that can be completed in four years. Without grades one could learn for the sake of learning and bettering ones self, they could grasp concepts rather than committing insignificant facts to memory. With grades students are more likely to learn in order to pass a test, where education should be learning to better oneself and fulfill the thirst for knowledge.
"It is time you [we] learned to wrestle with nature for yourself [ourselves]."
Monday, February 11, 2008
Right to Happiness
(In response to "We Have No Right to Happiness" by C.S. Lewis)
After reading paragraph one I was pretty sure I understood where Lewis was going with this article. I had assumed that he was stating that yes we do have a right to be happy, but this is only in certain situations and obviously not in the case of Mr. A. and Mrs. B. I too, "Can understand a right as a freedom guaranteed me by the laws of society I live in," and "as a claim guaranteed me by the laws, and correlative to an obligation on someone else's part." This is where Lewis brings up an excellent point by stating the motive for Clare's belief, "She meant that he had not only a legal but moral right to act as he did." This brought the factor of morality into my thought process of this argument. This made me think. I almost felt shorted. When beginning this article I had hoped to find an article preaching that we all had a right to be happy in Christ Jesus. I had hoped that this was going to build upon the other articles about us having joy on earth but a greater joy in heaven. But it does not.
Lets say there is a law that says you can go wherever you want to go. Does this mean that you can drive your can off of roads and into people's backyards ruining everything in your path? No, no it does not. This simple means that following all other penned and unwritten laws you may go wherever you want. One rule does not supersede all of the others, rather, a rule has to correlate with other laws. Not only must it reaffirm all other laws that are written, it must also pass the natural and moral laws.
C.S. Lewis goes on to say that Clare has never condoned a drunkard's actions simply because he was happy when he was drunk. It is here that one looks at himself and says, he's caught me. As much as I want to be able to say that everyone has a right to be happy, it is clear that this is not the case. I also believe it is here that Lewis changes the scope of his article. He then goes on to describe what is really at the heart of the argument. Not that man seeks happiness, but that man seeks "happiness" through temporary sexual impulses. This is where it became clear to me. This article does have correlation to the other articles we have read. It speaks of denying ourselves in the here and now, in the short term, because the things we experience here on earth are only fractions of the ecstasy that we will experience when we are living our eternal lives with him in heaven.
"To be in love involves the almost irresistible conviction that one will go on being in love until one dies,... not merely frequent ecstasies. /... When two people achieve lasting happiness, this is not solely because they are great lovers but because they are also.. good people; controlled, loyal, fair-minded, mutually adaptable people." People under control, denying themselves, picking up their crosses, and following Christ into eternal life.
After reading paragraph one I was pretty sure I understood where Lewis was going with this article. I had assumed that he was stating that yes we do have a right to be happy, but this is only in certain situations and obviously not in the case of Mr. A. and Mrs. B. I too, "Can understand a right as a freedom guaranteed me by the laws of society I live in," and "as a claim guaranteed me by the laws, and correlative to an obligation on someone else's part." This is where Lewis brings up an excellent point by stating the motive for Clare's belief, "She meant that he had not only a legal but moral right to act as he did." This brought the factor of morality into my thought process of this argument. This made me think. I almost felt shorted. When beginning this article I had hoped to find an article preaching that we all had a right to be happy in Christ Jesus. I had hoped that this was going to build upon the other articles about us having joy on earth but a greater joy in heaven. But it does not.
Lets say there is a law that says you can go wherever you want to go. Does this mean that you can drive your can off of roads and into people's backyards ruining everything in your path? No, no it does not. This simple means that following all other penned and unwritten laws you may go wherever you want. One rule does not supersede all of the others, rather, a rule has to correlate with other laws. Not only must it reaffirm all other laws that are written, it must also pass the natural and moral laws.
C.S. Lewis goes on to say that Clare has never condoned a drunkard's actions simply because he was happy when he was drunk. It is here that one looks at himself and says, he's caught me. As much as I want to be able to say that everyone has a right to be happy, it is clear that this is not the case. I also believe it is here that Lewis changes the scope of his article. He then goes on to describe what is really at the heart of the argument. Not that man seeks happiness, but that man seeks "happiness" through temporary sexual impulses. This is where it became clear to me. This article does have correlation to the other articles we have read. It speaks of denying ourselves in the here and now, in the short term, because the things we experience here on earth are only fractions of the ecstasy that we will experience when we are living our eternal lives with him in heaven.
"To be in love involves the almost irresistible conviction that one will go on being in love until one dies,... not merely frequent ecstasies. /... When two people achieve lasting happiness, this is not solely because they are great lovers but because they are also.. good people; controlled, loyal, fair-minded, mutually adaptable people." People under control, denying themselves, picking up their crosses, and following Christ into eternal life.
Friday, February 8, 2008
Longing and Hope
(In response to chapter 1 "Longing and Hope" from Engaging God's World by Plantinga Jr.)
Plantinga states that "Not everybody can report times of wanting to 'break out crying from stabs of hopeless joy,' but many do know what it feels like to yearn." This further validates the argument that we are not made for this world. Everyone knows how to yearn, and everyone yearns for something. The possibility that we might not have to yearn anymore, that we may experience stabs of hopeless joy that bring us to tears is incredible. We are not made for this world, our bodies yearn for better world.
"I have no idea to this day what those two Italian ladies were singin' about.... I like to think they were singin' about something so beautiful it can't be expressed in words, and makes your heart ache because of it. I tell you those voices soared, higher and farther than anybody in a gray place dares to dream. It was like some beautiful bird flapped into our drab little cage and made these walls dissolve away... and for the briefest of moments, every last man at Shawshank felt free."
--Ellis Boyd "Red" Redding-- from the movie Shawshank Redemption
This quotation is said in response to a man broking into a room and played a record on the loudspeakers of a maximum security prison. This was the first time in many years that these men had heard any music, many of them serving life for some crime or another. But I feel that this quotation would correctly describe our response if we were given a glimpse of Heaven on earth. It is almost as if we are in a maximum security prison here on earth, living out our life sentences yearning for freedom: a freedom that can only be experienced on the outside. Any glimpse of this freedom this wonderful experience of joy here on earth can only elicit the type of emotions that will be magnified when we experience the full reward in heaven.
St. Augustine says, "You have made us for yourself [God], and our heart is restless until it rests in you." We cannot not experience the extent of fulfilled joy until our hearts our at rest in the arms of our father. Until then we are left to yearn for the kingdom of God in heaven. We must, however, be careful not to "only hope for ourselves." Rather, we should "keep our head up so that we can look out toward the future of others."
This chapter has further built my anticipation of heaven and what it will be to experience perfect joy. It has also laid the groundwork on how to prepare myself for my journey in this life with the goal of reaching the afterlife.
Plantinga states that "Not everybody can report times of wanting to 'break out crying from stabs of hopeless joy,' but many do know what it feels like to yearn." This further validates the argument that we are not made for this world. Everyone knows how to yearn, and everyone yearns for something. The possibility that we might not have to yearn anymore, that we may experience stabs of hopeless joy that bring us to tears is incredible. We are not made for this world, our bodies yearn for better world.
"I have no idea to this day what those two Italian ladies were singin' about.... I like to think they were singin' about something so beautiful it can't be expressed in words, and makes your heart ache because of it. I tell you those voices soared, higher and farther than anybody in a gray place dares to dream. It was like some beautiful bird flapped into our drab little cage and made these walls dissolve away... and for the briefest of moments, every last man at Shawshank felt free."
--Ellis Boyd "Red" Redding-- from the movie Shawshank Redemption
This quotation is said in response to a man broking into a room and played a record on the loudspeakers of a maximum security prison. This was the first time in many years that these men had heard any music, many of them serving life for some crime or another. But I feel that this quotation would correctly describe our response if we were given a glimpse of Heaven on earth. It is almost as if we are in a maximum security prison here on earth, living out our life sentences yearning for freedom: a freedom that can only be experienced on the outside. Any glimpse of this freedom this wonderful experience of joy here on earth can only elicit the type of emotions that will be magnified when we experience the full reward in heaven.
St. Augustine says, "You have made us for yourself [God], and our heart is restless until it rests in you." We cannot not experience the extent of fulfilled joy until our hearts our at rest in the arms of our father. Until then we are left to yearn for the kingdom of God in heaven. We must, however, be careful not to "only hope for ourselves." Rather, we should "keep our head up so that we can look out toward the future of others."
This chapter has further built my anticipation of heaven and what it will be to experience perfect joy. It has also laid the groundwork on how to prepare myself for my journey in this life with the goal of reaching the afterlife.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Weight of Glory
(In response to C.S. Lewis article titled "The Weight of Glory")
In my philosophy class we've been reading an article by Russell Bertrum titled "Why I'm not a Christian." In it he states that one of the reasons he is not a Christian is because he doesn't believe that there is a hell. This popped into my head when I was reading Weight of Glory. On the first page Lewis says that "marriage is the proper reward for love." It got me thinking, God already loves us, and when we love we we are rewarded with a marriage to him. Reformed Doctrine says that baptism is the courtship and public profession of faith is the wedding ceremony. Heaven therefore would be a realization of this relationship. In the same way we are rewarded with marriage out of love, the lack thereof for Christ produces the opposite reward, hell.
I felt that Lewis's analogy of the schoolboy was again right on point. He goes on to elaborate on the topic of the schoolboy relishing in English poets before he comes to the realization of his love for Greek poetry. I believe this would perfectly describe the Christian walk, not only of one from atheist to Christ, but of a Christian born into faith. We as humans has been created un-whole, with a void to fill. There is only one thing that will fill that void, and no matter what we try nothing can substitute for a personal relationships with Jesus Christ. Even then we will still find ourselves struggling in this foreign world waiting for our trip to our eternal resting place. Lewis describes the irony of those trying to convince us that earth is our final destination. They try to convince us falsely how we can make heaven on earth.
"The promise of glory is the promise, almost incredible and only possible by the work of Christ, that some of us, that any of us who really chooses, shall actually survive that examination, shall find approval, shall please God. To please God...to be a real ingredient in the divine happiness...to be loved by God, not merely pitied, but delighted in as an artist delights in his work or a father in a son--it seems impossible, a weight or burden of glory which our thoughts can hardly sustain. But so it is."
Lewis makes some excellent points in this quotation from page 6 of the article. The words that I bold-ed are words/phrases that really stuck out in my mind as I was reading the excerpt. It seems impossible that us in our infinite sinful nature can please God. That God will not merely feel sorry for us. No, rather he will delight in us as an artist delights in his work. This seems something incomprehensible but this is a reality.
Lewis goes on to describe many different interpretations and explanations of glory. We all know what glory is, and when spoken in a humanistic sense has a negative connotation. However, we seem to be confused by this word when we use it in reference to God, because in that sense it cannot have a negative connotation. Image a being perfectly humble yet is worshiped by millions, one who can do anything he wants, yet does good. Our God is glorious in every sense of the word.
Finally, I realize sometimes it's kind of hard to comment on other people's posts, let me pose a question from the piece to elicit conversation. "Perhaps it seems rather crude to describe glory as the fact of being 'noticed' by God." What are your thoughts on this statement?
In my philosophy class we've been reading an article by Russell Bertrum titled "Why I'm not a Christian." In it he states that one of the reasons he is not a Christian is because he doesn't believe that there is a hell. This popped into my head when I was reading Weight of Glory. On the first page Lewis says that "marriage is the proper reward for love." It got me thinking, God already loves us, and when we love we we are rewarded with a marriage to him. Reformed Doctrine says that baptism is the courtship and public profession of faith is the wedding ceremony. Heaven therefore would be a realization of this relationship. In the same way we are rewarded with marriage out of love, the lack thereof for Christ produces the opposite reward, hell.
I felt that Lewis's analogy of the schoolboy was again right on point. He goes on to elaborate on the topic of the schoolboy relishing in English poets before he comes to the realization of his love for Greek poetry. I believe this would perfectly describe the Christian walk, not only of one from atheist to Christ, but of a Christian born into faith. We as humans has been created un-whole, with a void to fill. There is only one thing that will fill that void, and no matter what we try nothing can substitute for a personal relationships with Jesus Christ. Even then we will still find ourselves struggling in this foreign world waiting for our trip to our eternal resting place. Lewis describes the irony of those trying to convince us that earth is our final destination. They try to convince us falsely how we can make heaven on earth.
"The promise of glory is the promise, almost incredible and only possible by the work of Christ, that some of us, that any of us who really chooses, shall actually survive that examination, shall find approval, shall please God. To please God...to be a real ingredient in the divine happiness...to be loved by God, not merely pitied, but delighted in as an artist delights in his work or a father in a son--it seems impossible, a weight or burden of glory which our thoughts can hardly sustain. But so it is."
Lewis makes some excellent points in this quotation from page 6 of the article. The words that I bold-ed are words/phrases that really stuck out in my mind as I was reading the excerpt. It seems impossible that us in our infinite sinful nature can please God. That God will not merely feel sorry for us. No, rather he will delight in us as an artist delights in his work. This seems something incomprehensible but this is a reality.
Lewis goes on to describe many different interpretations and explanations of glory. We all know what glory is, and when spoken in a humanistic sense has a negative connotation. However, we seem to be confused by this word when we use it in reference to God, because in that sense it cannot have a negative connotation. Image a being perfectly humble yet is worshiped by millions, one who can do anything he wants, yet does good. Our God is glorious in every sense of the word.
Finally, I realize sometimes it's kind of hard to comment on other people's posts, let me pose a question from the piece to elicit conversation. "Perhaps it seems rather crude to describe glory as the fact of being 'noticed' by God." What are your thoughts on this statement?
Friday, February 1, 2008
Bulverism
(In Response to C.S. Lewis's article titled "Bulverism")
In reading the article about Bulverism I cannot help but think of my older brothers. This "tactic" or reasoning is parallel to that of an older brother "always knowing what is best" if they are wrong or not. As a younger brother you are always assumed wrong, when you finally are in the know and have a solid argument it is defeated by what I know deem as Bulverism. In this instance I am assumed wrong and ridiculed on past and irrelevant happenings until I have been discredited to the point where no one has any idea of how the argument started or is about. In this manner the older siblings have successfully avoided looking less intelligent and can now claim that they have still never been wrong. After employing the system of Bulverism a person is likely to use the argument against that person claiming that they originated the idea.
I not only see this in my family but everywhere I go. Political debates, church politics, friendship circles and many other areas where arguments take place. Rarely are arguments won by rationalization and sound logic. They are won, however, by whoever is the most dominating. Whoever speaks louder, whoever has the last word, whoever intimidates his opponent will win the argument regardless. Rarely is this untrue.
The essay delves deeper into the heart of the matter towards the end of the portion by C.S. Lewis. He acknowledges that even though it may not produce results we would still all rather have reason than implement bulverism. Lewis poses the question of whether one must believe in God in order to "know." A notion that we all must answer in the negative. However, if knowing means to truly know in the sense that only absolute truth comes from God and that a close relationship with him means a closer relationship with the truth, then yes, one must believe in order to truly know.
Lewis makes the claim that all truth and argument must be founded on either causes or reason. "Causes are mindless events which can produce other results than belief. Reasons arise from axioms and inferences and affect only beliefs. Bulverism tries to show that the other man has causes and not reasons and that we have reasons and not causes." ... "If these are the results of causes, then there is no possibility of knowledge. Either we can know nothing or thought has reasons only, and no causes." Obviously we have know something which lends itself to reason, to knowledge, to truly knowing, to belief, where a belief is the strongest argument based and rooted in God.
In reading the article about Bulverism I cannot help but think of my older brothers. This "tactic" or reasoning is parallel to that of an older brother "always knowing what is best" if they are wrong or not. As a younger brother you are always assumed wrong, when you finally are in the know and have a solid argument it is defeated by what I know deem as Bulverism. In this instance I am assumed wrong and ridiculed on past and irrelevant happenings until I have been discredited to the point where no one has any idea of how the argument started or is about. In this manner the older siblings have successfully avoided looking less intelligent and can now claim that they have still never been wrong. After employing the system of Bulverism a person is likely to use the argument against that person claiming that they originated the idea.
I not only see this in my family but everywhere I go. Political debates, church politics, friendship circles and many other areas where arguments take place. Rarely are arguments won by rationalization and sound logic. They are won, however, by whoever is the most dominating. Whoever speaks louder, whoever has the last word, whoever intimidates his opponent will win the argument regardless. Rarely is this untrue.
The essay delves deeper into the heart of the matter towards the end of the portion by C.S. Lewis. He acknowledges that even though it may not produce results we would still all rather have reason than implement bulverism. Lewis poses the question of whether one must believe in God in order to "know." A notion that we all must answer in the negative. However, if knowing means to truly know in the sense that only absolute truth comes from God and that a close relationship with him means a closer relationship with the truth, then yes, one must believe in order to truly know.
Lewis makes the claim that all truth and argument must be founded on either causes or reason. "Causes are mindless events which can produce other results than belief. Reasons arise from axioms and inferences and affect only beliefs. Bulverism tries to show that the other man has causes and not reasons and that we have reasons and not causes." ... "If these are the results of causes, then there is no possibility of knowledge. Either we can know nothing or thought has reasons only, and no causes." Obviously we have know something which lends itself to reason, to knowledge, to truly knowing, to belief, where a belief is the strongest argument based and rooted in God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
