Final Paper

The Source and Revelation of Morality:
A Conversation between Mr. C.S. Lewis, John Calvin, and St. Paul the Apostle
By Sarah DeGraff
IDIS 150 B
January 22, 2010

The following is a recording of a conversation held by Jack Lewis, John Calvin, and St. Paul in Eternity. The three are philosophizing over the topic of morality on Earth, a topic about which all three are quite passionate about while they were still living there. Their topics include the subjects of Reason, Total Depravity, and Love. The discussion begins with Lewis addressing the issue of the source of morality. Please note that some of Calvin’s ideas are represented through Cornelius Plantinga, Jr., and may not be the exact thoughts of Calvin himself.

Lewis: “…so of course gentlemen, the source of morality is outside and independent of humanity itself. We can see proof of this in that men all feel that they should act in a certain way, and yet fail to do so – showing that they know this Law, and yet break it, and not only that, but they cannot actually fulfill it. This Law is quite different from, say, gravity or inertia. In fact, it is not even observable, yet every man feels within his being the pull to act rightly according to this Moral Law” (Lewis).

Calvin: “Indeed, the sensus divinitatis that all men feel; the seed of religion itself” (Plantinga).

Paul: “As I wrote in my letter to the Romans (7:19): ‘For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do – this I keep on doing’” (Holy Bible).

Lewis: “This can be seen through the fact that when Man tries to rid himself of a certain morality in search of a better one that He in fact is simply not trusting His own reason, nor is He doing anything other than elevating one moral tradition that He has selected above the others and fooling Himself into thinking that He has created something new. Instead, he cannot create anything at all outside the matter that has already been created” (Lewis).

Paul: “Very true, Jack. Because humanity is no longer under the old covenant of the Jews and instead is under the covenant of Christ, it has the freedom to choose Christ, or in fact, any morality” (Holy Bible).

Lewis: “Yes, but that morality ultimately comes from God Himself. As you can see, Nature abides by its own laws – the wind blows or is still, the hound tracks the fox – and Humanity does as well. Men love, pursue knowledge, paint masterpieces, for example” (Lewis).

Calvin: “Of course! Without God, there is no morality, nor is there good of any kind. God Himself is Good, and therefore is the only source of goodness in the created world. Because of Common Grace, everyone can experience goodness on the Earth, even those who have not been saved. And because of Common Revelation, everyone has the ability see God revealed through nature. However, God also has Special Revelation, in which those of us who study His word and His creation can understand and observe to a higher degree the intricate and wonderful Ways, not only of creation, but of God Himself” (Plantinga).

Lewis: “Pursuing knowledge for the glory of God and to counteract ungodly philosophies is certainly worthwhile…” (Lewis).

Calvin: “Yes, Jack, but we must consider Total Depravity as well. Everything in creation is fallen and wicked and tends towards sin, and has from the very moment Original Sin occurred. If it were not for the Common Grace God bestows on the sinner and saint alike, there would be no goodness in the world whatsoever. Humanity needs this Grace in order to maintain its present state, lest it plunge into chaos” (Plantinga).

Paul: ‘That is an interesting thought, John. I believe that the Law, as written in the Torah, kills; it can never be followed, and so leads to death. But because of Christ, we are now able to be made righteous through faith in Him. This means that we are free to be obedient to Him, and through Christ we are able to grow in love towards one another and develop fruits of the Spirit because of our faith and obedience. This is what saves us” (Pomykala).

Lewis: “You know, while both of you disagree about the way Christ lends grace to humanity, you both agree that Christ is the only One who can save us. On a fundamental level, you both agree. I think it is important to realize that you both agree also on the importance and necessity of Christ’s justification of a person, of the fact that God reconciles that person to Himself” (Pomykala; Plantinga). “Once a person is in Eternity, as we are, they will understand fully this mystery, and also the joy of the completion of that built-in desire that could never be fulfilled on Earth. He or she can have ‘that perfect humility that does indeed dispense with modesty’ because both the work itself and the person are good, and are appreciated by God” (Lewis).

Calvin: “Like the perichoresis between the Trinity – that intimate and intricate relationship between the Three where each holds the other at His center – human relationships, too, will be wholly fulfilling for those welcomed into the Kingdom of Heaven” (Plantinga).
Paul: “Of course, the entirety of the point of justification and salvation is to be with Christ…” (Pomykala).

Lewis: “But others will be in Eternity too, as we are. Then they will understand fully the need for the different loves on Earth – Friendship, Affection, Romantic Love – but that these loves can be tainted, twisted, and degraded by human sin. Once they get to Eternity, they will be able to understand fully the power and pleasure of agape love. Even though humanity can experience parts of agape interspersed through all the other loves and all relationships, it will come to fruition in Eternity; they will experience that Love that is clean and pure; they will be able to fully understand what is meant by the phrase ‘God is Love’” (Lewis).

Calvin: Nods contemplatively; “Interesting. Lunch anyone?”

Recorder’s Notes: As the three great minds on Christian thought walked away, I was left alone to think about all they had said. Certainly, having once been human, I could understand that mysterious desire to maintain an unspoken moral standard that is best explained through the existence of a loving and personal God, and not being able to consistently uphold that Moral Code. And yet I also remember others on Earth who tried to create a new Morality by using one piece of that timeless Moral Code. As for the Total Depravity question and Christ’s redeeming love as the Answer, I was certain. “And now these three remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love”[1]


Bibliography


Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004. 117-
26. Print.

Lewis, C.S. "Mere Christianity." Calvin College 2006 Ed. Paulo Ribeiro. Calvin College, n.d.
Web. 18 Jan. 2010. .

Lewis, C.S. "The Four Loves.” Calvin College 2006 Ed. Paulo Ribeiro. Calvin College, n.d.
Web. 18 Jan. 2010. .

Lewis, C.S. "The Poison of Subjectivism." Calvin College 2006 Ed. Paulo Ribeiro. Calvin
College, n.d. Web. 18 Jan. 2010. .

Lewis, C.S. "The Weight of Glory." Calvin College 2006 Ed. Paulo Ribeiro. Calvin College, n.d.
Web. 18 Jan. 2010. .

Plantinga, Jr., Cornelius. Engaging God’s World: A Reformed Vision of Faith, Learning, and
Living. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2002. Print.

Pomykala, Kennith. Class Lecture. Religion 223: Paul’s Letters. Calvin College, Grand Rapids,
MI. Fall Term 2009.
[1]

1 Corinthians 13:12-13. Holy Bible: New International Version. Bible Gateway. Web. 19 Jan. 2010. http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=faith+hope+and+love&qs_version=NIV

The Necessity of Pain for Disillusionment

In the chapter from The Problem of Pain called Human Pain, Lewis states that "...the proper good of a creature is to surrender itself to its Creator..." and that we as humans are not just imperfect, but that we are rebels against God because of our selfishness and self-sufficiency. He says that we must have pain so that we can realize that we need to rely on God for our strength, life, and existence. Pain is what breaks down our will, and is needed because we can be content in our sins, like sexual sin or slothfullness, but pain shakes us up and shows us the truth of our ways. "It removes the veil; it plants the flag of truth within the fortress of a rebel soul."

Lewis also addresses Divine Humility - that God humbles Himself because we only call out to Him to save us when we feel we are in desperate need of Him and know no one and nothing else can save us. And even though He is our last resort, He still accepts us. And yet, when we do surrender to Him, he has our whole attention and will for a few hours or a few days, and then things start to get better and we leave off again for lesser truths and lesser gods.

I agree too, with Lewis's idea that God commands certain things because they are right, and not the other way around. Things like justice, peace, hope, love, faith, patience, are worth striving for, and even, as Lewis points out, if God for some impossible reason told us not to pursue such things, we should pursue them anyway because of their intrinsic goodness.

The thought that I found most interesting in this exerpt was the way Lewis explains why pain and suffering exist in the world, and why they happen to "good" people. I had been taught that bad things happen in this world simply because Sin and Evil exist and are rampant in this world. And certainly that does not go against what Lewis is saying; he simply takes the idea to a different level. His belief is that "bad" or painful things happen to people because people must learn how to rely on God, and simply will not do so when life is going well for them. Thus, our will must be broken so that we can have God. This is why many Christians talk about the importance of dying to ourselves daily. All of this definitely makes sense to me, but I'm going to have to think about it more before I'm ready to fully accept it all.

Paradise Now: Israeli Occupation

Having taken a class on the Modern History of the Middle East last spring, I know a little bit of the information behind the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. The movie Paradise Now shows two Palestinian men in their last few days preparing to become suicude bombers in Israel. In the end, one man decides he can't go through with it, while the other feels like he has no other option.

The movie left me with more questions than answers. What organization was behind the bombings - was it Hamas/the Muslim Brotherhood? Is this whole thing using religion to get believers to do things for publicity? If that's true, then what the world needs to do is not sit around and do nothing, or in the US's case, supply Israel with weapons.

As an outsider to this whole conflict, I can easily ask "don't they understand that violence just begets more violence?" But when living in your own home town means sporadic bombings, houses bulldozed over for sketchy reasons, being unable to get to work or to a hospital because you have to cross a checkpoint into Israel with fickle and sometimes mean guards, or having children who go to school in Israel and are sometimes killed, and often heckled or beaten by Israelis and need guards to escort them, and now, the wall being built, this can lead to an immense feeling of desperation. Of loss of dignity and hopelessness and anger. Now we can begin to understand why some feel that they have no other option. Not that retaliatory killing is the answer, but it can start to sound like a good idea if you've lived under these oppressive circumstances your entire life, and not just you, but the ones you love too.

Knowing what I know about the whole situation, it's all a big, stinking pile of injustice. To both sides it's personal; it's religous, it's political, and neither can seem to let go of their anger and pride in the name of peace. But I hope they will soon anyway. Like the main female lead in the movie, Palestinians can go about their lives seeking justice through civil rights movements and organizations, and above all, never tire of hoping. And as for the rest of the world, we can help by advocating for the full civil rights of the Palestinians, and at the very least, a two-state solution, and not be disuaded by people who plead for us to let them continue to oppress others just because their grandparents were oppressed by Hitler. What they themselves are doing - today - is wrong, and not excusable by any historical fact, no matter how brutal or unspeakable. Answering evil with evil is not right and never will be, and we have no right to condone it either.

Man or Rabbit

In a country and age when there is Internet access on our cell phones, instant access to ownership through cites like amazon.com, and constant noise from the music on our mp3 players, we could agruably be seen as more like animals now than when Lewis wrote God on the Dock, for no other reason than it has become easier to ignore God because of technology. (And ironic, considering most people would view technological advancements as a sign of an advancing people or civilization). It's much more fun to be entertained constantly by our gadgets than to sit in silence and listen for that still small voice.

But enough preaching. I find it interesting that he brings up the differences in points of view between Christians and Materialists: Materialists act to benefit society's institutions when they are trying to do good because individuals survive shorter periods of time than institutions do. Conversely, Christians would act to benefit people, because we are all of us eternal, and civilizations are not. I had actually never thought of this idea before. As an IDS major I am certainly concerned with individual people, but also with social institutions because they are the only tool I can use to better others. In this sense it's really hard to find a balance, and I'll probably do a lot more wrestling with this idea in the next few years.

I really liked Lewis's comments on good people who were not Christians, and yet benefitted society. He also says that he would hope God would show mercy on them and their innocent ignorance or honest error. I have heard rumors that Lewis was a Universalist. This is probably untrue, and yet his sentiments here hint of it. I can't say that that fact displeases me. I don't have God's plans worked out, but I certainly like the idea that God would show mercy on those who tried and yet couldn't find a way to His Truth. Mercy is a big part of God's nature, and I think that we as Christians have a tendancy to forget that as fallen people. "Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him!" My gut instinct is to be inclined to agree with Lewis about men who evade Christ for fear or shame or any such thing, and to stop searching for Truth because of those emotions, that is wrong. Of course, God has the ability to forgive this too, and Lewis was certainly a fan of the pursuit of knowledge, and thus biased in this matter. And so I think that as I think about this more, I'll probably wind up going against my first impulse.

The Inner Ring

"Of all the passions, the passion for the Inner Ring is most skillful in making a man who is not yet a very bad man do very bad things...As long as you are governed by that desire you will never get what you want. You are trying to peel an onion: if you succeed there will be nothing left. Until you conquer the fear of being an outside, an outsider you will remain."

Reading this essay reminded me of children in the schoolyard. We learn the skill and pleasure of exclusion at a painfully early age, maybe even before we realize the full effects of our snobbery and evil. But certainly we did know that what we were doing was wrong, even if we didn't realize that this was the sort of thing teens killed themselves and others over in middle and high school. Columbine would be another good example of someone that just couldn't take that kind of desire and torture anymore.

Before reading Lewis's essay, I would have said that this whole Inner Ring madness was just people being immature. After all, when I was younger I was teased and ridiculed for all sorts of things I couldn't help or didn't care to, and by high school I decided not to care instead of feeling awful every day. But now that I'm older, and my adult family members complain of that second heirarchy in their workplaces and Bible studies, I'm beginning to think that a lack of maturity may not explain away the issue. After all, Lewis says that Inner Rings are unavoidable in society, that there must be confidential conversations and the like.

Lewis's solution is to stop desiring to be inside the Inner Ring, because it will not only let you down once you are in, but break your heart whether you get in or not. Once you abandon your desire, you will find yourself eventually among friends. I don't know how much of this I agree with though. Using the Inner Ring theory to explain social relationships is far too simplistic and can't explain fully why or how friendships actually develop. However, I think it is good to be reminded not to fall into the temptation trap of Inner Rings, because they do shoot to kill, so to speak.

In terms of Christianity, where we as Christians are not exempt from desiring Inner Ring status nor excluding others from our own Inner Rings, this desire is dangerous. It's the exact opposite of the way we are called to act towards one another. I think the biggest temptation is to see people who are not Christians, or who are not as involved in the church as we are, or something else equally trivial, as less adequate than we are. Because after all, isn't this whole Inner Ring business about feelings of inadequacy? And instead of just letting go and having faith that God is the One who makes us adequate, who accepts us, loves us, wants to have a relationship with us more than anything, we pursue the lesser: we want instead for our peers to accept us, and this acceptance is never enough. I think Lewis forgot to mention that. Don Miller writes eloquently on this topic in his book Searching for God Knows What, and fills in the blanks that Lewis has left us with.

Plantinga Chapter Five

Chapter Five basically explained the Christian college student's role in the world - both present and future. Plantinga addressed the issue of vocation by defining it as the ways we further God's Kingdom here, now, on Earth. Thus, our career is not our full vocation, but only a part of it. If there's one thing I can say for Plantinga, it's that he gets quite passionate about this subject (and about the future of Calvin students and Heaven in the Epilogue too).

What I really liked about the chapter was a quote Plantinga used by Frederick Buechner: "The place God calls you to is the place where your deep gladness and the world's deep hunger meet." I think that's a beautiful way of addressing the issue of vocation because it shows the way our lives should be. Certainly, this is what I myself hope (and long) for, that I can be glad in serving some great need in the world. The quote also doesn't have the audacity to try and set up certain rules to follow to get to that point, but instead gives us the freedom to find our own way, to make mistakes, to learn and grow and be tested. I don't think anyone gets to that point (if anyone ever does) without deviating from the path they set out from in the beginning. When I started out as a Freshman I never thought I would drop out of my first university, leave the state for six months, come to Calvin, and now live in Project Neighborhood and about to live in Honduras for the semester. I thought I was just going to get my degree and then start my life. But instead I went through a lot of hardships and unexpected situations, and found that I was already living my life.

I think it's important to recognize and internalize just how important it is to pursue what you love doing. Maybe that sounds cheezy, but I'm surprised at how many of my friends are going to college to get a degree in something they don't even like doing so that they can be rich, because they think that's the best way to live. As for me (and I'm not saying everyone should live this way) I want to live a simple life, a traveler's life, and I want to bring justice to people who can't get it on their own because the systems oppressing them are just too big to fight against alone. Everything else (and that plan too) I'm trusting to God to provide.

The Four Loves: Eros

How many things have we done in the name of Eros, or even just when we are smitten, that we have looked back later and wondered "What was I thinking?!" I am definitely guilty of ignoring my good friends in the name of Eros, a love which, at the end, was not what I had hoped for. I looked back and doubted that I ever had been in love, that I even knew what love was, and wished I had attended to the relationships of my friends instead of spending all my time with that one person, or worrying about that one relationship, or when I was with my friends, only talking about that one person and wishing it was him with me and not them. I think this situation ties into Lewis's thoughts of looking at versus along a situation. If I had been more objective when I was younger, I could have saved myself a lot of pain and still had meaningful dating relationships. But then again hindsight is always 20/20.

That being said, I can certainly see where Lewis gets the idea that Eros can become a god for us. How many times have we seen our friends choose to do foolish or strange things in the name of "love"? And TV, movies, ads, and books all give us the idea that if we aren't in love then somehow we are deficient, inadequate, abnormal, lacking something big, maybe even diseased in some way. Even going to Christian colleges where many times the mentality is that of the pressure of the "ring before Spring" mentality, or that of going just to get an "Mrs. degree" don'te give us respite from such mainstream ways of thinking.

And to make matters worse, this system is all set up so that even when we are in that Eros-type love, if we don't feel it every minute of every day forever, then something must be wrong. Lewis dispells this quite easily in the chapter - Eros makes us feel as though we must follow him, sacrifice for him, and yet is fickle and fleeting. This is not the Hollywood love story "happily ever after" life. This is reality. Wake up. Snap out of it. (I sure need to!) Love is a choice, it takes work, it isn't always what we expect it to be, and darn it, we do need to laugh about it, because otherwise this whole thing is taken way too seriously - and that type of seriousness would only lead to pain and tears in our romantic relationships. (Which is often filled with enough pain and tears anyway).

I think we need to recognize that marriage is a holy relationship, is created by God for our benefit, and that Eros is just one part of our lives, not the whole of it, and certainly not the goal. Yes, it can be a great benefit to us, to have a best friend that lives with us and loves us despite our faults and goes through our trials with us. But Eros is not the end all and be all of life.