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.

Plantinga Chapter Four

After reading the chapter titled Redemption, I can agree with Plantinga's views on Christ, as can most of us who have grown up in Christian homes - God sent Christ, His only Son, to Earth; Christ was a fisher of men, He never sinned, He was "persecuted, dead, and burried" as the Nicene Creed states, and He rose again on the third day. But as for the rest of the chapter, I can't say I entirely agree. I don't hold the same view towards predestination, total depravity, common grace, or preservation of the saints that Calvinists do, and so it was hard for me to read the rest of the chapter because everything that Plantinga states is saturated with Calvinist beliefs. (For example, I was raised to believe that anyone can lose his or her salvation. This goes along with a verse we talked about in class - about being lukewarm, and thus spat out of God's mouth. I also do not read or confess the Canons of Dort, the Belhaur Confessions, or the Heidleberg Catechism.)

Today we talked in class about whether or not going to a Christian college like Calvin could bring us closer or farther away from Christ. For me - and this started at the other university I attended - I have experienced both. I have found that learning so much more about God and His creation and Revelation than I ever could have in church has made it hard for me to go to church for several reasons. One being that the more I hear pastors speak, the more my heart hardens against church sermons because they are too simplisitc, too easy, too geared towards entertainment than truth oftentimes. The music is the same - either so stubbornly rooted in tradition that the church is losing members (like a certain CRC church I attend one Sunday a month) or too concerned about entertainment and not enough about God, (like the church I used to attend before college). And at the same time all of this is happening, God is preparing me to go into my vocation - International Development - and I can easily recognize the ways in which this is happening. Ultimately, I feel that my faith in Humanity has decreased, and my faith in God increased. I've really enjoyed all of the philosophical discussion the Lewis exerpts and sermons have inspired in this class, and as for Plantinga, all I can say to him is that: 1. the focus should be on loving others, and not judging them, and 2. writing a book on Calvinism for a diverse audience should be less from a white upper class male perspective - I found myself bristling often because of the insensitivity in this regard.

Life is Neither Wholly Sacred nor Wholly Secular: A Simple Truth Revisited

CS Lewis addresses the Cultural Mandate in his speech Learning in Wartime by stating that we are "fiddling on the brink of Hell." He is simply saying that Man has always strived for knowledge during such Eternal circumstances. Our nature is to create, learn, discuss, while the battle between Good and Evil all about us rages. Sometimes, as during war, it becomes more obvious to us than others, but certainly we act this way in the face of Something much greater than we are.

He goes on to say that it is unrealistic to believe that once you are saved that somehow your life makes a move from the secular to the sacred and therefore all you think about or do must be religious in some sense. One's mind cannot constantly be in a church service or in a war (who's mind is even 100 percent in a church service even when our bodies are there?). Lewis states that while many things are worth dying for, they are not worth living for. This is not to be confused with "living for Christ" but rather living as a saved human and also attending to natural actions like eating or working or going to the dentist's.

"[Christianity]...is rather a new organization which exploits, for its own supernatual ends, these natural materials." Thus, whatever we do as Christ Followers, we are to do for His glory, because that is what is commanded of us, no matter what it is, and that action will become worship to our Creator. Nature does this naturally, (although it too, is fallen), as it was intended: wind blows or is still, the Earth turns at a certain speed, trees bloom in the springtime. And because we have a natural thirst for knowledge, we should choose to follow it.

I agree with this sentiment entirely. I know that many Christians place evangelizing, preaching, and missionary work above other forms of work, but I don't think that they are right. After all, some of us need to be plumbers, farmers, and electricians, or our world as we know it would quickly fade away. I admit that I'm biased, because I love to learn and have absolutely no desire to pester random people on street corners about their faith. (In fact I find that doing so is unloving and counter-productive - we need to form lasting and honest relationships with people!)

However, I don't know how I feel about Lewis's sentiments earlier in his speech. I think that good actions can glorify God even when they come from people who have not chosen to acknowledge Him. Maybe God won't except that person per se (although I don't know that either, and in any case it's not a situation I or any human being has a right to judge), the actions of living and breathing and working and playing and procreating all work to His glory. In this matter, none of us have a choice.

The Poison of Subjectivism

Lewis introduces the topic of Subjectivism by stating that "Until modern times, no thinker of the first rank ever doubted that our judgements of value were rational judgments or that what they discovered was objective...the modern view is very different. It does not believe that value judgments are really judgments at all." In present times, when we say that something is "good" it means that that is how we feel about that something, instead of a value judgment.

The logic and arguments that Lewis uses in this essay are an extension of those in the first four chapters of Mere Christianity. We as humanity have an objective standard of reality that is independent of us, otherwise we would have no valid way to measure good and evil. None of us can go outside of the traditional morality that has been created, not by us, but by God, who is independent of us. Because we as humans cannot create anything outside of what has been created for us, to try and find a different or better moral standard is an invalid attempt to go outside of our reality, and instead only elevates one sort of moral tradition over another - but all these morals exist within the traditional morality that is already in existence.

Lewis's logic amazes me. He takes a subject that I take for granted and completely turns it on its head. I really feel as though I can use his arguments to back up claims of God and objective morality to people who claim otherwise, and be taken seriously. I also like how he goes on to say that we can only move closer or farther away from an absolute and unchanging good only if it is absolute and unchanging, or as others say, stagnant. And that anyone who has rejected this cannot make any value judgment on it, because they now have no objective platform from which to judge.

What I find most interesting is his statement on how just because we as Humanity are fallen, that fact does not mean that we cannot see clearly what good is in the same way that we are unable to be fully good. This is exactly what Paul the Apostle says when he writes to his various congregations about the Jewish Law. The Law showed him how to sin and made him unable to fulfill it. The Law was impossible to keep. This is why Christ came, so that we are now under a new Law. A Law that demands faith instead of works for redemption, salvation, and life. Because even though that uncreated Good that comes from God and is God and exists outside of Humanity exists, it is unreachable except through our new Covenant with Christ. Amen and amen!

Learning Lewis: BBC Broadcast Reflections

I've never really given the personality or personal life of CS Lewis much thought beyond "Wow, he must have been extremely intelligent." But what I heard about Jack yesterday in class made a lot of sense to me. He was kind, stern, competitive in his ideas. He avoided large crowds of people and kept to himself and his group of well-known friends instead. He was introverted and spent most of his time in his head rather than in the material world - he owned no TV and got his news from word of mouth. I can relate to all of these behaviors. I avoid TV whenever possible and would rather spend my time with a select few than a large group of people. (That is to say I am an introvert that favors the realm of ideas and solitude, not that I am at all a genius or amazing author, although those who are, like Lewis, certainly have my respect.)

The broadcast basically stated that Jack spent the whole of his time thinking, speaking to groups of people, and writing, which is consistant with the amount of works that he has published and his participation in public life. His lack of interest in international, and even national, happenings may have been excusable, and even likable, before the advent of the Internet and an almost entirely global economy, but I doubt it would have been acceptable in today's society. Some people feel as though they are born in the wrong part of time, but for Lewis, I think he was quite timely.

I also found it fascinating that he married a girl just so she could stay in England. To me that sounds inconsistant with his personality. I'm not really surprised that they wound up falling in love - the majority of human history has composed of marriages that started with strangers and ended with lovers. That is to say that arranged marriages where neither person knew the other beforehand were common, and they fell in love later in their marriage, once they got to know each other. This to me proves that love is a choice. Not our common concept of falling in love per say, but what we would call "making it work." It really is a tragedy, though, that after waiting most of his for Joy, that their time together was so short.

Mere Christianity

I have to admit felt a little cheated reading the first few chapters of Mere Christianity. Not because I already believe in God but because all the logic that Lewis logicks out is something I had already done myself in early high school. However, I do have two things I'd like to reflect on.

The first is about Moral Law. I find it interesting that although we as humans feel a compulsion to, say, help save someone who is drowning in a river, or stop someone about to end his life by jumping off a high bridge, we have no legal obligation to do so. In fact, if we were to try and help or interfere with that person and he were hurt in the process, we are legally responsible and can be sued by them. I think it's interesting that although we as humans all would feel the tug of Moral Responsibility telling us to help that person, our own man-made laws discourage us from doing any such thing. I wonder what this means about us?

Secondly, I found Lewis's thoughts on science in Chapter Four interesting: Lewis addresses the issue of science trying to prove the presence or absence of a Higher Being in the Universe, and yet that is something that science can't prove and was never meant to prove. Science can only observe and record and posit, and a Higher Being is not necessarily observable to a neutral scientist: "You cannot find out which view is the right one by science in the ordinary sense. Science works by expiriments. It watches how things behave."

I wonder if, like when we make plans for our lives, God laughs when we try to prove or disprove His existence. God is mysterious. He didn't give us all the answers. If He had, we would have no use for faith, which is a huge part of our belief system. As for me, I am perfectly happy without trying to prove God's existence. I see little glimpses of it every day, and I'm happy for the Mystery.

Plantinga Chapter Three

Because I was not raised in the Christian Reformed tradition (both my parents were and decided that it wasn't right for me and my brother), I had never heard of Total Depravity or Common Grace or Irresistable Grace. These are all fairly new concepts for me, and I admit that because I was raised in a different sect of Christianity, not all aspects of these subjects sit well with me. I do, however, believe in Original Sin and that we are all tainted with sin because Adam and Eve chose to disobey God.

What I had never thought about before, however, is that evil needs good in order to exist. It makes sense of course - God existed before evil and Lucifer's descent into Hell, and will continue to exist long after evil is destroyed - but I had never thought about that fact in terms of the present day here on earth. Evil cannot create, but can only distort, as was mentioned in class. That fact, to me, brings hope and shows very obviously the sovereignty of God and of His Goodness. Now I know why Satan is sometimes called The Destroyer.

Of course, this subject leads me to the fact that because God is Good he must be totally seperate from evil, and thus from us because we are sinful by nature because of the Fall. And as Plantinga quotes in his book, Augustine says: "Sin becomes the punishment of sin." If you doubt this, just look at the nature of familial relationships. If a mother and father divorce because one of them has committed adultery, their children are much more likely to divorce as well. The Bible clearly states "...and the sin of the fathers will follow down, even to the third and fourth generations." Thus, we perpetuate our own fallness. And once we are stuck, as individuals, in the pattern of corruption and sin and evil, it's a quick and slippery spiral downwards from whatever Good heights we had struggled to reach. Even as we live in the already-but-not-yet times betwee Christ's first and second comings, the Bible predicts for us that things will get worse before they get infinitely better.

Lukewarm Behavior

It always amazes me how much Lewis can say within such a small amount of words. In the case of The Screwtape Letters, much of what he says through his characters Screwtape and Wormwood is exactly what we learn in Sunday school, and yet we constantly need to be reminded that the Way to Hell is often"...[a] gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts..." For most of us turning away from God is a slow and subtle thing that starts quietly and often without our conscious knowledge.

This is especially true in a time when many of our distractions are also precieved necessities. We have to check our email, answer that text, listen to that song. The pull to do all these things and more each day is strong, as also mostly useless. Most of us are afraid to have silence surround us, or to be alone. That's when that pesky still and silent voice often speaks to us, convicting us. The two issues that seem to go together are this fear of silence and the doubting and wrestling with the fact of God's existance, something most of us thought we had figured out ages ago, and yet here we are, wondering. Not that doubting is a sin, nor is wrestling with our beliefs about God's character or Church. But it is certainly frusterating to struggle with something, and even more so when we feel like we're struggling alone, without God, and that no one is going through what we are. (Because everyone else is busy pretending to be a "good Christian," whatever that means.)

And yet this struggling is much better than the apathy and false 'Christian-like' actions in Lewis's story. We all act to some extent, to be sure, and herein lies the danger. Instead of being honest about our struggles with our brothers and sisters, we keep them to ourselves for fear of other's judgements - and this fear is not unfounded! We Christians are some of the most judgemental people I have ever met. So, what I am saying, as a moral to the experpt, is that we should all be open and honest and loving towards one another. In this way we will all be challenged by each other and grow in Christ, instead of living in the fear that leads to apathy and often spiritual death.

The Weight of Glory!

"Meanwhile, the cross comes before the crown and tomorrow is a Monday morning." Such apt and timeless words. Lewis here begins to petition us to see each other as holy, see the weight of our actions as they truly are. Each of us helps others, other "potential gods and goddesses," along the road towards eternal Splendor or eternal Damnation with our every action and word. He asks us to truly love one another without "flippancy, superiority, or presumption."

This has got to be one of the hardest things any of us could try to do. Not only are we to "love our neighbors as ourselves" as Christ commands us, but we must look at each individual and recognize that God-spark in their eyes - and that by our treatment of them and relationship with them we are interacting with a unique and holy part of God's precious creation. I have never understood humanity in this way before (and I've even read this sermon in the past). Maybe because I have such a hard time recognizing the Divine in my humanity I can barely sense it in others. But I also understand almost instinctively that were I to look at others and search for God not only would I find Him but my relationships with them would improve and deepen and strengthen. We all desire to be reunited with Christ, we all desire joy, and we are all able to attain both. And so, a new challenge for me in my faith: to recognize God in everyone I meet and treat them as a unique and special creation close to the Father's heart.

I also think it's beautiful that Lewis recognizes that true humility despenses with modesty. With God, we can be childlike in our pride at our small mimickries of Creation. We get to present our children, a new lesson we've learned, a garden we've successfully planted, a few dollars well spent, to our Creator with joy and even pride. How freeing is that? Where else and to whom else could we act like this towards as "adults?" To do this is to get a small glimpse of Heaven, where we can truly be carefree and come to Christ as a child, to feel firsthand Christ look at us with the pride and happiness of a loving father. As adults who have grown up in a nation with a divorce rate over fifty percent, we can all recognize the significance of such a thing.

Plantinga Chapter Two

In church and Sunday school when I was younger it was always hinted at that somehow God was lonely or bored and so created. In the chapter about creation, Plantinga points out that the Holy Trinity is in a constant state of perichoresis and is completely fulfilled in this relationship - no need for anyone else . Thus, God created us out of a love for creating and a joy in doing it. As a human in a fallen world, that statement is hard for me to comprehend (obviously). This of course, explains both our need for deep and meaningful companionship in our lives and our passion for creating things of our own, which is good, because it is exactly what God commands us to do.

One thing that Plantinga failed to mention but I feel is worth commenting on is hardship in the Garden. Adam was created first, and God had him name all the animals before giving Adam what he truly desired - another human. Scientists think that it would have taken him ten to 100 years to name each and every animal. And in that time he was no doubt looking for a companion that would understand and communicate with him, but to his detriment, found none. Then and only then did God create Eve, and finally Adam could say "you're like me!" and be fulfilled. So, the point here is that not only was work intended for us by God, but so is a bit of healthy struggle for our own good - Adam wouldn't have appreciated Eve half as much had she been there with him all along. And so it is for us and the things we want and need. Sometimes they are held back from us for our future benefit.

As a quick aside, Plantinga's seventh point on the meaning of the Christian doctrine of creation rubs me the wrong way. Maybe it's just his word choice. Maybe it's just that it shouldn't even be mentioned because it's so intrinsic. I don't really know. I think community is extremely important and we as Western society don't put enough emphasis on it in living our lives.

"Our English Syllabus"

One line in Our English Syllabus really caught my attention: "if education is beaten by training, civilization dies. That is a very likely thing to happen." Lewis here is refering to the type of education that creates a love of learning versus a vocational training that simply prepares one for the workforce. By civilization, he means culture, and believes that it is formed through "leisured activities of thought."

I find myself wondering if this sentiment is true today. If, as Lewis goes on to say, to be fully human is to learn and to have the desire to know, then to be fully human is today simply a matter of preference and access to the Internet or public library. This has almost nothing to do with formal or vocational education. And further, going on to higher education does not automatically make one a creator of culture. One can graduate with a BA or BS and still be a drone that simply perpetuates culture and is interested only in learning enough to remain high enough in one's field to make large amounts of money. In fact, I personally know people who fit this example perfectly.

Conversely, love of knowledge can, as it did for me, grow out of a pre-"human" state. I began to love learning as soon as I learned to read. Since kindergarten I've gobbled up as many books as I can, and most of them were outside the lists of books perscribed to me by my teachers; I was, and still am, full of curiosity. In this way, I could be considered "fully human" long before I came to participate in post-secondary education.

On a side note, most people who go to a college or university are not lower class - the lower class often attends vocational schools, and in this respect I find Lewis to be insensitive, even incorrect. Firstly, although vocational schools do not train one to persue certain fields of knowledge or cultivate a healthy curiousity for certain topics the student may be interested in, that does not mean that the students at vocational schools are less curious or less able to think for themselves. It only means they need to pay their bills more desperately than others of us do. And secondly, anyone can learn, and love learning for its own sake, outside of their job.

Plantinga Chapter One

Plantinga addresses the common human experience of a soul's longing and it's innate sense of the Divine; what St. Augustine called the "Supreme Good." Our soul points us to Something beyond this earth, something we are made aware of by those "stabs of joy" we sometmes experience. What I found most interesting in the first chapter was Plantinga's next point on hope and it's relationship with longing. When one hopes, one is longing and yearning and often striving for a certain goal. Hope's three main components are faith, desire (longing), and imagination, according to Plantinga. Certainly I can understand such longings: when I'm alone hiking in the woods, or someone's kindness catches me by surprise, or I wake up with the feeling that the world is at my feet on that certain day, I can feel my soul being pulled towards something that is not attainable in this place and time.

This, of course, is because we are a fallen race, and live in the already-but-not-yet as we await Christ's immanent return. An innate part of each of us as humans recognizes this, and hopes for the return of shalom here on Earth. I find it unfortunate that for so many people, myself included, shalom simlpy means a nice, happy form of peace. Plantinga points out that the true meaning of the word in its original Hebrew context was much deeper than that. It meant wholeness, justice, harmony, joy, complete satisfaction and action under and in and through the love of the Savior himself.

Perhaps it is a difficult word to grasp because it is so hard for us to fathom what true shalom really is and means for us. But it is because we are only given small hints as to what the future has in store for us that we are able to hope, and thus desire, work towards, and anticipate, a New Heaven and Earth where everything is as it should be.

Reflections on "No Right to Happiness"

What interested me the most in this essay was Lewis's belief in Natural Law and how it influences national law. I believe that the laws we pass and observe as a nation are shallow reflections of God's Laws. All Laws, whether human or Divine, are intended to protect us. However, as citizens of a nation, we are able to observe the letter of the law only for our own self-interest. Conversely, when we observe God's laws as Christ-followers, we should be and often do, follow the spirit of the law. This means that our motivation behind not murdering someone because they've angered us is because we love them as our Neighbor and not simply because we fear the consequences of prison. (However, Christians are often motivated into obediance to God because of the consequence of Hell instead of love for others, but that is an entirely different can of worms, and I won't go into it here.)

David Korten, author of The Great Turning, addresses this issue in terms of levels of consciousness. There are five levels of development altogether, but for this post we are interested in only the third and fifth levels. The third level of consciousness is concerned with civic duty. This level is often the highest reached for adults in America. Civic consciousness is concerned with following the laws of the nation and state, fairness for all, and persues that fairness by enforcing the law. This is the model "good citizen." Conversely, the fifth level, called the Spiritual level, is concerned with justice, love for others, recognizes the big picture in terms of issues of the law and thus is willing to change it in order to promote universal justice. This level is the hardest to reach, and many people never do.

However, I think that as Christians we should be striving to attain this level of consciousness so that we are not just following national law, but Christ's laws for us. This means that we recognize that although our laws permit us to divorce our spouse for almost any reason, Christ requires us to commit to our spouse for a lifetime. Our persuit of happiness is not an option in this matter. I believe that happiness is a human creation, and as Lewis says, is influenced greatly by outside factors. Joy, on the other hand, would exist even if we did not, and therefore is of God. This to me, means that our persuit should not be fickle and slippery "happiness," but instead attainable and constant Joy, created by a reachable and constant God!

Reflections on "Bulvarism"

From an excerpt in God on the Dock Lewis explains his Bulvarism theory. Simplified, it is that we are now focusing the brunt of our arguments on delivering ad hominum attacks to our opposition. The most glaring example is in politics, where the majority of the time candidates running for a certain office are focused more on eliminating the competition through digging up unsavory personal facts in their rival's history, or by simply pointing fingers at a rival's ethnicity, religion, and family ties.

Unfortunately, Bulvarism has grown since Lewis wrote on the subject. Post-modern thought and moral relativism continue to be the norm in Western society, and even in Christian individuals today. We so want to be right and so want to get along that we wind up sacrificing our beliefs in order to satisfy everyone, as is evident in the common belief that "what is true for you is true for you, but it does not have to be true for me."

But, as Lewis points out, values cannot be caused by social factors, otherwise how could we know that they are truly right? He goes on to say that Reason and Will cannot be products of Nature, because they can exist outside of Nature, and yet Nature must depend on Will and Reason. Thus, God created Nature. And so here we have it: Lewis's proof of God's existance. And yet many people are stuck in the earlier paragraphs, throwing morality out the window and keeping their own. I can't say for certain that I can simply believe Lewis's proof for God. Of course, God exists. But it seems like so many people need philosophical or scientific proof of His existance - something I've never personally felt the need for. Because of this, it's hard for me to both believe in proofs of God (because I think that God enjoys a little mystery), and because in a way it negates the need for faith.

Reflections on "Meditation in a Toolshed"

In Meditations in a Toolshed, Lewis writes of gazing along a ray of light versus gazing at the ray, and asks which experience is the more valid of the two. He comments that in today's society we are prone to look "at" a subject and discredit looking "along" anything. Lewis states that one cannot look logically at a situation without first having been subject to that situation oneself. Indeed, one can never completely be outside of one's own experiences. He comes to the conclusion that we must all abandon our previous prejudices and look both "along" and "at" everything in order to surmise which is the best way to view any individual situation, stating that it is possible to have both or one view and be correct depending on the subject.

I found it intruiging that Lewis was able to point out that Western society often talks about and judges situations in complete objectivity without ever once having been in the situation it is judging. Thus, it's thinking, talking, and debating is actually about nothing! I think it's true that we as Westerners are quick to judge the Other. Perhaps that fact is due to our society's tendancy to value independence and individualism. I think we all would do well to judge less and learn more.

As for my beliefs on whether we should look "at" or "along," I agree with Lewis, for the most part. However, the way we tell others about our lives is through stories, and stories can be a way of living vicariously through another's personal experience. We as humans have the ability to understand a situation without experiencing it ourselves. This is why reading and watching movies are compelling to many of us. Thus, I would add to Lewis's essay the fact that there are gray areas too; that the world is not all black and white and we can visualize looking "along" that ray of sunlight as another describes it to us and be able to understand, albeit imperfectly, what the other is seeing.