My Developing a Christian Mind class was called “C.S. Lewis: Integrating Reason, Imagination, and Faith”. In the class we focused on some of Lewis’ greatest works, from Mere Christianity and The Screwtape Letters to provocative essays like “The Weight of Glory” and “We have no Right to Happiness”. I have read a few of books in Lewis’ The Chronicles of Narnia Series, but besides that, I have had very little experience with his writings. I found his works to be eye-opening, insightful, and incredibly logical. I am sure I will continue to read Lewis for the remainder of my life because of what this class has introduced to me. The second part of our class focused on Cornelius Plantinga Jr.’s Engaging God’s World. Plantinga’s book is split into five parts: Longing and Hope, Creation, The Fall, Redemption, and Vocation in the Kingdom of God. While I had learned the vast majority of this in Sunday School or Catechism in high school, it was interesting to see a new perspective on things, especially coming from the president of Calvin Theological Seminary. There are many issues that both Lewis and Plantinga address. These include the innate sense of something bigger, certain aspects of Creation, and learning as a vocation.
The first chapter of Cornelius Plantinga Jr.’s book is centered on the idea of hope and longing. One of the most interesting points I found in this chapter is what Plantinga calls the sensus divinitatis. This phrase, taken from John Calvin, can be translated as “sense of divinity” and refers to mankind’s innate knowledge that there is something bigger. This means that human beings want God, whether or not they recognize what they want as God. Those of us who believe in Christ as our Savior have found God (from our perspective), but there are many others who have not recognized God as what they are looking for. They may try to fulfill their sensus divinitatis in Nature, in another person, in drugs, or in knowledge. However, the fact remains that every person knows that there is something more than what we can see or hear. C.S. Lewis holds a very similar idea in a number of his works, including “The Poison of Subjectivism” and Mere Christianity. Lewis uses logic in “The Poison of Subjectivism” to show how subjectivism doesn’t make sense; if there is nothing accepted as Truth, nothing can be proved. Creating a new reality is not possible; those who try are merely focusing on only one branch of the existing morality, and in doing so, they chop down the trunk of the tree which is holding their branch (Christian Reflections 75). In chapter one of Mere Christianity, Lewis says, “This law was called the Law of Nature because people thought that everyone knew it by nature and did not need to be taught it.” Lewis supports his idea of a natural moral law by showing how, throughout history, all cultures and civilizations have had basically the same principles (pride is bad; courage is good). All people have known that there are basic rules that should be followed. This innate sense of a moral law is closely related to the sensus divinitatis that Plantinga discusses. It is important to remember, however, that the Natural Law is not complete; God’s will can only be understood through the Law given to Moses. While the Natural Law and the Mosaic Law intersect often (murder is wrong according to the Ten Commandments, as well as wrong in all civilizations throughout history), we must realize that the Natural Law is not enough. We cannot be good Christians by just following our conscious, as our conscious has fallen into sin. Similarly, a sensus divinitatis isn’t enough. We need to use the sensus divinitatis instilled within us in order to get to know God, or we will have wasted it.
Plantinga’s second chapter is concerned with Creation. While much of it focuses on how we must care for the world, there are a few other points I would like to highlight. One of the most interesting ideas that Plantinga addressed is why God created the universe. It was not an accident; this is very apparent from Scripture: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth” (Gen. 1:1). Furthermore, we know that everything that happens happens for a reason; of course this would include the gigantic deed of Creation. It would also be incorrect, Plantinga says, to believe that Creation was something God had to do. God wasn’t lonely and therefore needed to create the universe; God was already experiencing a relationship with himself: perichoresis. This “endless dance”, as Plantinga calls it, exists between the three persons of the Trinity. This relationship is so complete that God doesn’t need anything more; creation wasn’t necessary. The question remains: why did God create everything? I agree with Plantinga that Creation was an overflow of God’s character. God is by nature a creative Being, and it was therefore natural to create. Plantinga says “it was an act fitting for God” (23). Another important point Plantinga makes is that, even after the fall, Creation retains in part some of its “goodness and promise” (35). That means there is a sliver of God in every part of our fallen world. Both of these points (Creation is an overflow of Gods nature and it retains some of God’s goodness) are crucial in understanding what C.S. Lewis says in his powerful essay “The Weight of Glory”. Lewis talks about how what we see and experience on earth is merely a reflection of the glory which we will see and experience in heaven. “We discern the freshness and purity of morning, but they do not make us fresh and pure” (“Weight” 8). He makes the important point that we aren’t to worship Nature; that would be idolatry. However, we can, in fact see God through Nature. The beauty of the sky, the majesty of the mountains, the splendor of the forests, all reflect God’s beauty, majesty, and splendor. The mirror of Nature reflects exactly what Plantinga talked about: the remainder of goodness in Creation. Despite being fallen, Creation can be a very useful tool in seeing attributes of God, but we must remember, “Nature is only the first sketch” (“Weight” 8).
The final chapter in Engaging God’s World was called “Vocation in the Kingdom of God”. One point I found interesting in this chapter was who Plantinga talked about each of us having our own “mini-kingdom”, or sphere of influence that is our duty to redeem. As a college, this could be my dorm room, or my group of friends, or a part of the Grand Rapids community I feel called to help. Another important idea Plantinga mentions is that right now, I have been called to come to Calvin College. My vocation right now is to be the best student I can be. “For four years or so, such preparation is itself a big part of your vocation. Your calling is to prepare for further calling, and to do so in a Christian college community that cares as much about the kind of person you are becoming as what kind of job you will eventually get, and as much about how you will do your job as about which job you do” (Plantinga 117). I am really happy that Calvin is not just concerned about me getting a job, but being able to do it well and to do it as a follower of Jesus Christ. C.S. Lewis, being a college professor, has a number of essays related to education. In “Our English Syllabus”, he discusses the importance of learning over education. Learning is obtaining knowledge simply because you are hungry for knowledge. This is an important idea that Plantinga doesn’t address. While he shows that our vocation is not just about getting a job, Plantinga fails to acknowledge that as a Christian student, part of my vocation ought to be learning about God’s world because I want to. The quote I mentioned above says that my vocation is currently preparation; I agree with Lewis in that it is so much more than that. I am not only supposed to be interested in how well I will be able to serve the Kingdom in the future, but I must be interested in “the pursuit of learning” (“Syllabus” 88). Another point that both Lewis and Plantinga address is the importance of liberal arts. Plantinga stresses the importance, just like Calvin College does. Lewis agrees that, in order to understand one subject completely, you must understand all subjects. However, this is not possible in anyone’s lifetime, let alone one’s college career. Some branches of knowledge must be cut off in order to achieve any knowledge that is more than superficial.
This class has taught me a great deal, and it shows how two people, though different in many ways, can be connected in many ways. As a college student, it is an understatement to say I don’t have everything figured out. However, I can learn a lot from studying the opinions of others (like Lewis or Plantinga) and deciding for myself what seems the most like the Truth that God partially reveals in His Word.
Sources:
Lewis, C.S. Christian Reflections. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995. Print.
Lewis, C.S. “Our English Syllabus.” In Rehabilitations and Other Essays. London: Oxford UP, 1939. 79-94.
Lewis, C.S. “The Weight of Glory.” Theology, November 1941.
NIV Study Bible
Plantinga Jr., Cornelius. Engaging God's World. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2002. Print.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Monday, January 25, 2010
An Inconvenient Truth
In An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore presents the issue of global climate change. As Christians, we know it is very important to take care of the earth. As God said in Genesis 1:26, man is supposed to rule over the earth. This doesn’t mean we can rule it however we want; we ought to imitate God in this sense. God rules over us by caring for us and doing what is good for us; we need to mirror with care for the earth.
That being said, there are what I perceive as flaws in the film. First, Gore shows that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are directly proportional to global temperature. However, he doesn’t sufficiently prove which variable is the independent one and which is the dependent one. Furthermore, while he accurately shows that the carbon dioxide level is far higher than it has been before, this has been true for some years now. The temperature is not any higher than during other carbon dioxide spikes. There could very well be a “cap” to the global temperature.
Another aspect of the film I didn’t like was its gross overuse of pathos. Gore tries to use emotions to get us to believe him and to rally with him for his cause. For example, he complained about the 2000 election and how according to the ballots at one point he was president. He also talked about the death of his son, even though that was completely unrelated to the issue at hand. For extra pathos, Gore compared certain aspects of global warming to issues like smoking, World War II, and the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. While the comparisons connected in a sense (Churchill was warning the citizens of Great Britain that they need to be prepared for German invasion, just like the residents of earth should prepare themselves against global warming), they were not entirely applicable.
Finally, Gore didn’t give us any ways that we can stop the climate change. He seemed to tell us it is hopeless. He tries to scare us instead of telling us how we can prevent it. Overall, however, it is an eye-opening film that is definitely worth seeing.
That being said, there are what I perceive as flaws in the film. First, Gore shows that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are directly proportional to global temperature. However, he doesn’t sufficiently prove which variable is the independent one and which is the dependent one. Furthermore, while he accurately shows that the carbon dioxide level is far higher than it has been before, this has been true for some years now. The temperature is not any higher than during other carbon dioxide spikes. There could very well be a “cap” to the global temperature.
Another aspect of the film I didn’t like was its gross overuse of pathos. Gore tries to use emotions to get us to believe him and to rally with him for his cause. For example, he complained about the 2000 election and how according to the ballots at one point he was president. He also talked about the death of his son, even though that was completely unrelated to the issue at hand. For extra pathos, Gore compared certain aspects of global warming to issues like smoking, World War II, and the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. While the comparisons connected in a sense (Churchill was warning the citizens of Great Britain that they need to be prepared for German invasion, just like the residents of earth should prepare themselves against global warming), they were not entirely applicable.
Finally, Gore didn’t give us any ways that we can stop the climate change. He seemed to tell us it is hopeless. He tries to scare us instead of telling us how we can prevent it. Overall, however, it is an eye-opening film that is definitely worth seeing.
The Problem of Pain: Human Pain
In the sixth chapter of C.S. Lewis’ The Problem of Pain, he discusses pain as it relates to humans. I like the distinction he makes between the two kinds of pains. The first, Lewis explains, is a sensation given to us by our “nerve fibres”. This kind of pain isn’t necessarily disliked by the patient; for example, while working out, the ache in one’s muscles is tolerated or even enjoyable. The second kind of pain, however, is never wanted by the patient. This second kind of pain, which the remainder of the chapter addresses, is defined as “any experience, whether physical or mental, which the patient dislikes.” To help us better understand what he means by this type of pain, Lewis gives us synonyms like “suffering”, “anguish”, and “tribulation”.
Next, Lewis dives into the much more difficult task of explaining why we have pain. It is interesting to note that the research paper I wrote last year for my English 101 class was on the topic of God’s role in suffering. While I have read about the reasons Lewis gives for pain (in the Bible as well as other books on the topic), it was interesting to see the different perspectives and methods of explanation Lewis used. One insightful point Lewis makes is that “God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscious, but shouts in our pain: it is his megaphone to rouse a deaf world.” Sometimes we are so focused on worldly things that we fail to realize God is trying to talk to us. While it hurts, pain is a fantastic tool to get us to listen to God. I think it is true of most people that they feel closest to God during or immediately after a rough spell in their lives.
Another interesting point Lewis makes is how some believe that everything we do will naturally cause pain to us, because our nature is inherently anti-God. Lewis believes, and I would tend to agree with him, that this is only sometimes the case. Sometimes our will coincides with God’s will, albeit we may (and probably do) have different reasons. It’s amazing to think about pre-Fall Adam and Eve, whose will always coincided with God’s will. This means they would have achieved utmost pleasure from doing God’s will. In fact, pain would come (and did) only from doing something against God’s will. Maybe heaven will be like this: the greatest earthly pleasure we can think of (e.g. sex, drugs, wealth) will not even compare to the pleasure we get from doing what God wants, because it will also be what we want.
Next, Lewis dives into the much more difficult task of explaining why we have pain. It is interesting to note that the research paper I wrote last year for my English 101 class was on the topic of God’s role in suffering. While I have read about the reasons Lewis gives for pain (in the Bible as well as other books on the topic), it was interesting to see the different perspectives and methods of explanation Lewis used. One insightful point Lewis makes is that “God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscious, but shouts in our pain: it is his megaphone to rouse a deaf world.” Sometimes we are so focused on worldly things that we fail to realize God is trying to talk to us. While it hurts, pain is a fantastic tool to get us to listen to God. I think it is true of most people that they feel closest to God during or immediately after a rough spell in their lives.
Another interesting point Lewis makes is how some believe that everything we do will naturally cause pain to us, because our nature is inherently anti-God. Lewis believes, and I would tend to agree with him, that this is only sometimes the case. Sometimes our will coincides with God’s will, albeit we may (and probably do) have different reasons. It’s amazing to think about pre-Fall Adam and Eve, whose will always coincided with God’s will. This means they would have achieved utmost pleasure from doing God’s will. In fact, pain would come (and did) only from doing something against God’s will. Maybe heaven will be like this: the greatest earthly pleasure we can think of (e.g. sex, drugs, wealth) will not even compare to the pleasure we get from doing what God wants, because it will also be what we want.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Man or Rabbit
C.S. Lewis writes “Man or Rabbit” in response to a question he received: “Can’t you lead a good life without believing in Christianity?” The essay, however, isn’t an answer to the question. Rather, it shows that whoever is asking the question is grossly missing the point of life. Lewis makes very good points throughout the work, the most important of which analyzes the motive of the question itself. Instead of being concerned with Truth, the one who asks the question merely wants to know if it is acceptable to shirk some responsibilities (i.e. Christianity) and still reap the reward (i.e. eternal life). Man is interested in Truth; like Lewis says, “If Christianity is untrue, then no honest man will want to believe it, however helpful it might be; if it is true, every honest man will want to believe it, even if it gives him no help at all.” The one asking the question, then, is no man but an animal, seeking only what he can gain.
One point on which I disagree with Lewis is when he introduces the subject of “honest error”. He says that he believes a man who has addressed Christianity rather than hiding from it, but then “honestly can’t believe it”, will be forgiven and healed; God will “remedy the evils”. I think the Bible is very clear that only he who accepts Christ will be forgiven of his sins. However, I do agree that the man of “dishonest error” is more to blame. One who commits “dishonest error” doesn’t even address Christianity. He avoids it, because he is afraid of what he might see. He refuses to look, because then he may be changed, and then he’ll have more work to do.
Lewis concludes by saying that a good life without Christ is severely missing the main purpose. Instead of mere morality, we are called to search for Truth, which can only be found in Jesus. I really like Lewis’ closing, which shows morality’s inability to truly liberate: “Morality is a mountain which we cannot climb by our own efforts; and if we could we should only perish in the ice and unbreathable air of the summit, lacking those wings with which the rest of the journey has to be accomplished. For it is from there that the real ascent begins. The ropes and axes are ‘done away’ and the rest is a matter of flying.”
One point on which I disagree with Lewis is when he introduces the subject of “honest error”. He says that he believes a man who has addressed Christianity rather than hiding from it, but then “honestly can’t believe it”, will be forgiven and healed; God will “remedy the evils”. I think the Bible is very clear that only he who accepts Christ will be forgiven of his sins. However, I do agree that the man of “dishonest error” is more to blame. One who commits “dishonest error” doesn’t even address Christianity. He avoids it, because he is afraid of what he might see. He refuses to look, because then he may be changed, and then he’ll have more work to do.
Lewis concludes by saying that a good life without Christ is severely missing the main purpose. Instead of mere morality, we are called to search for Truth, which can only be found in Jesus. I really like Lewis’ closing, which shows morality’s inability to truly liberate: “Morality is a mountain which we cannot climb by our own efforts; and if we could we should only perish in the ice and unbreathable air of the summit, lacking those wings with which the rest of the journey has to be accomplished. For it is from there that the real ascent begins. The ropes and axes are ‘done away’ and the rest is a matter of flying.”
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Vocation in the Kingdom of God
In Plantinga’s final chapter, he discusses our response to Christ’s redeeming work, or our vocation in His Kingdom. One of the first points he makes is one I had never thought about before. In the most famous section of Handel’s magnum opus Messiah, we sing “King of Kings and Lord of Lords”. This implies that God, while he is supreme, is not the only ruler. There are many rulers and kingdoms underneath the heavenly Ruler and Kingdom. The simple application of this idea is how part of our vocation is to abide by the civil laws, as earthly rulers were placed there by God. The more profound application that Plantinga mentions is that each person has his own tiny kingdom, or “sphere of influence”. We must seek to make our own mini-kingdoms more Christ-like; it isn’t necessary (impossible, actually, until Jesus returns) to change the Kingdom as a whole.
Plantinga makes a distinction between a good citizen of God’s Kingdom and a prime citizen of God’s Kingdom. Plantinga says the good citizen “likes the Kingdom of God just fine”, while the prime citizen “passionately yearns for it” and “has a calling”. I must disagree with Plantinga here. If someone is a citizen of God’s Kingdom, he will inevitably yearn for it. Every Christian has a calling. That being said, I don’t yearn as well as I should. I don’t think about God’s Kingdom as often as I should, but focus on earthly things; however, as a Christian, I will gradually develop a more passionate yearning (sanctification).
Finally, I don’t know what my vocation will be. Some people know from childhood what they are going to do with their life. God hasn’t told me yet what His plan is for me. However, I do know one thing: college is meant to prepare me for my presently unknown vocation. Therefore, my present calling is to be the best student I can be, so that I can be well prepared for my future vocation. This is a very important thing for me to keep in mind during my tenure at Calvin College: in order to become the person I am called to be, I need to ready myself. I fully agree with Plantinga when he says that college needs to teach me how I will do my job, in addition to helping me decide what I want my job to be.
Plantinga makes a distinction between a good citizen of God’s Kingdom and a prime citizen of God’s Kingdom. Plantinga says the good citizen “likes the Kingdom of God just fine”, while the prime citizen “passionately yearns for it” and “has a calling”. I must disagree with Plantinga here. If someone is a citizen of God’s Kingdom, he will inevitably yearn for it. Every Christian has a calling. That being said, I don’t yearn as well as I should. I don’t think about God’s Kingdom as often as I should, but focus on earthly things; however, as a Christian, I will gradually develop a more passionate yearning (sanctification).
Finally, I don’t know what my vocation will be. Some people know from childhood what they are going to do with their life. God hasn’t told me yet what His plan is for me. However, I do know one thing: college is meant to prepare me for my presently unknown vocation. Therefore, my present calling is to be the best student I can be, so that I can be well prepared for my future vocation. This is a very important thing for me to keep in mind during my tenure at Calvin College: in order to become the person I am called to be, I need to ready myself. I fully agree with Plantinga when he says that college needs to teach me how I will do my job, in addition to helping me decide what I want my job to be.
The Inner Ring
The first thing C.S. Lewis does in “The Inner Ring” is quote a paragraph from War and Peace. In the excerpt, Tolstoy introduces us to an old general, Prince Andrey the captain, and Boris the second lieutenant. Andrey and the general are speaking in a room, but when Boris walks in, Andrey ignores military protocol to address him, thereby ignoring his superior. The “unwritten system”, as Tolstoy calls it, between Andrey and Boris, trumps the “official system”. Lewis calls these unwritten systems “Inner Rings”.
Lewis says a few very interesting things about Inner Rings, or as we might call them, cliques. One point I found insightful is how, from the inside, they are seen merely as friendships. If a member of an Inner Ring is talking about those in the Ring, he will say “us” or “the guys” or even “everyone”. However, from the outside, it is quite different: the outsider might say “those guys” or “Fred and his people” or “that clique”. Obviously, it seems much more exclusive to the outsider. Another thoughtful point Lewis makes is how an Inner Ring is always more attractive from the outside. It’s like the adage “The grass is always greener on the other side.” Once you are in, the novelty soon fades, and you will shortly spy a different Ring you want to be a part of. An Inner Ring doesn’t satisfy if your goal is only to get into it. A final point Lewis makes that I like is how an Inner Ring isn’t evil. In fact some Inner Rings, like family or friendships, are quite good. What makes an Inner Ring bad is your motive for wanting in. If you want in for the sake of being in, it won’t be a good experience. However, if you want to be genuine friends with those in the Ring, there is no reason the Ring would be bad. What we must remember, though, is to avoid treating outsiders like outsiders. Even to those not in our Inner Rings, we must show Christ’s love and hospitality.
Lewis says a few very interesting things about Inner Rings, or as we might call them, cliques. One point I found insightful is how, from the inside, they are seen merely as friendships. If a member of an Inner Ring is talking about those in the Ring, he will say “us” or “the guys” or even “everyone”. However, from the outside, it is quite different: the outsider might say “those guys” or “Fred and his people” or “that clique”. Obviously, it seems much more exclusive to the outsider. Another thoughtful point Lewis makes is how an Inner Ring is always more attractive from the outside. It’s like the adage “The grass is always greener on the other side.” Once you are in, the novelty soon fades, and you will shortly spy a different Ring you want to be a part of. An Inner Ring doesn’t satisfy if your goal is only to get into it. A final point Lewis makes that I like is how an Inner Ring isn’t evil. In fact some Inner Rings, like family or friendships, are quite good. What makes an Inner Ring bad is your motive for wanting in. If you want in for the sake of being in, it won’t be a good experience. However, if you want to be genuine friends with those in the Ring, there is no reason the Ring would be bad. What we must remember, though, is to avoid treating outsiders like outsiders. Even to those not in our Inner Rings, we must show Christ’s love and hospitality.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
The Four Loves: Eros
Today we had the privilege of listening to one of the few recordings of C.S. Lewis reading one of his sermons or essays. We listened to a recording nearly identical to the Eros chapter in Lewis’ book The Four Loves. It was very interesting to actually here Lewis’ own voice, instead of reading something for which we use our own internal voice.
One of the most interesting ideas Lewis said about Eros is that the presence of it is not a moral issue. That is, Eros and morality are not in any way related. For example, in arranged marriages, there might not be Eros, but it can still be a God-honoring, moral marriage. On the other hand, in a case of adultery, there is usually Eros, but it is definitely not moral.
Another insightful thought is how Eros is not just sexual love, but romantic love in general. This means that Eros is being in love with someone and necessitates being in love with everything about them, not just their body. I agree with Lewis when he says that more often, you fall in love with someone as a person (i.e. their personality) before you have a desire to love them sexually.
True Eros, Lewis says, is when it is “better to be miserable with her than happy without her”. I think this is a very bold idea for Lewis to have, because he is saying that true love doesn’t necessarily require happiness. I had never thought about this before. I like how that definition shows how essential the person is to your life when you are in love, but I would think that if you are with the person you love, happiness would inexorably come. Of course, happiness will not be constantly present, but in general, happiness will accompany real Eros.
The most important thing Lewis says, however, is about we need to work at preserving our romantic love, or it won’t last. Lewis gives two analogies to show that “no passion is self-preservative”: first, falling in love is like diving off of a diving board, but being in love is the swimming that inevitably follows. Diving is the easy part, but we need to work at staying afloat, or our love will sink. The second analogy is that of a garden. At the beginning, a relationship may look like a beautiful garden, but as everyone knows, a garden will not weed itself. If left unchecked, the garden will be no more and all that will remain is yard waste.
One of the most interesting ideas Lewis said about Eros is that the presence of it is not a moral issue. That is, Eros and morality are not in any way related. For example, in arranged marriages, there might not be Eros, but it can still be a God-honoring, moral marriage. On the other hand, in a case of adultery, there is usually Eros, but it is definitely not moral.
Another insightful thought is how Eros is not just sexual love, but romantic love in general. This means that Eros is being in love with someone and necessitates being in love with everything about them, not just their body. I agree with Lewis when he says that more often, you fall in love with someone as a person (i.e. their personality) before you have a desire to love them sexually.
True Eros, Lewis says, is when it is “better to be miserable with her than happy without her”. I think this is a very bold idea for Lewis to have, because he is saying that true love doesn’t necessarily require happiness. I had never thought about this before. I like how that definition shows how essential the person is to your life when you are in love, but I would think that if you are with the person you love, happiness would inexorably come. Of course, happiness will not be constantly present, but in general, happiness will accompany real Eros.
The most important thing Lewis says, however, is about we need to work at preserving our romantic love, or it won’t last. Lewis gives two analogies to show that “no passion is self-preservative”: first, falling in love is like diving off of a diving board, but being in love is the swimming that inevitably follows. Diving is the easy part, but we need to work at staying afloat, or our love will sink. The second analogy is that of a garden. At the beginning, a relationship may look like a beautiful garden, but as everyone knows, a garden will not weed itself. If left unchecked, the garden will be no more and all that will remain is yard waste.
Redemption
In the penultimate chapter of Engaging God’s World, Plantinga discusses the integral belief of redemption. One of the most interesting of Plantinga’s ideas was what he said about the purpose of the Ten Commandments. Plantinga calls these Commandments “a set of requirements that people have to fulfill not in order to get rescued by God from slavery, but because they have been rescued.” This is important for a number of reasons. First, it shows that we don’t obey God in order to be rescued. That would be a works-based faith, one which reformers like Luther and Calvin worked so hard to abolish. Second, it shows that God loved us first, saved us, and we ought to return His love by living for Him. Like the Heidelberg Catechism says, our following of God’s Law is simply a response to His love for us. Another reason Plantinga gives for the Ten Commandments is to protect us. This is true today, but I found the example Professor Ribeiro gave in class yesterday especially true. During the Bubonic Plague, a group of Jews living in Europe were kept safe because of the laws of cleanliness the Torah decreed.
I also like what Plantinga said about the “double grace” that God grants us. The first part is justification. This means that those who believe are right with God, and are sinless in God’s eyes, because of the work of Jesus Christ. That doesn’t require anything from us. The second part of “double grace” is sanctification. This is significantly more difficult (for us). Sanctification is the long-term process by which we become a little holier every day. To accomplish this, we must spend time in God’s Word, reach out to those in need, and purify our thoughts constantly. Sanctification will last our entire lives, and while we can never be perfect here on earth, that is exactly what we must strive for.
I also like what Plantinga said about the “double grace” that God grants us. The first part is justification. This means that those who believe are right with God, and are sinless in God’s eyes, because of the work of Jesus Christ. That doesn’t require anything from us. The second part of “double grace” is sanctification. This is significantly more difficult (for us). Sanctification is the long-term process by which we become a little holier every day. To accomplish this, we must spend time in God’s Word, reach out to those in need, and purify our thoughts constantly. Sanctification will last our entire lives, and while we can never be perfect here on earth, that is exactly what we must strive for.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Learning in War-Time
In “Learning in War-Time”, C.S. Lewis offers many ideas that are very useful to a student like myself. As in “Our English Syllabus”, this essay was meant for undergraduate students and gives good reasons to work hard as a student. First, Lewis addresses the fact that, when he is writing this, Europe is on the brink of World War II. He says that this is no excuse to be distracted from studies. “The war creates no absolutely new situation” because there is always something going on. If it hadn’t been the war, it would just be something else. I find this true in my schoolwork repeatedly. I can always find an excuse to put off my work until later; there’s always something “better” to do. I assume that I will have time to do homework later in the day, but then something else will inevitably pop up. I need to learn that the best time to do something is the present, so I will have time later to do the things that may pop up.
Another objection to learning in war-time is simply an objection to learning in general. Shouldn’t we be focusing on saving non-believers instead of learning mathematics, history, English literature, psychology, or chemistry? Shouldn’t our entire life be focused on the religious aspect? Lewis gives several reasons why learning about “secular” subjects is important, all with which I agree. First, he says that abolishing a good cultural life will only result in a worse cultural life. “If you don't read good books you will read bad ones. If you don't go on thinking rationally, you will think irrationally. If you reject aesthetic satisfactions you will fall into sensual satisfactions.” Furthermore, as 1 Corinthians 10:31 states, “whatever you do, do it for the glory of God.” This implies that whatever we do, including going to school, can be done for God’s glory. If we have been given scholarly talents, we ought to use them for God’s glory. Additionally, as we learn from Dutch theologian Abraham Kuyper, every square inch of the world belongs to God. Whatever subject we are studying, we are learning about God’s world and thereby learning about God. A final reason why learning about secular topics is important is for the sake of evangelism. If all Christians are utterly uneducated, the educated people that do not know the Lord would scoff at us, and disregard everything we say. We need to be able to connect with non-Christians, and being educated is an important part of that.
Another objection to learning in war-time is simply an objection to learning in general. Shouldn’t we be focusing on saving non-believers instead of learning mathematics, history, English literature, psychology, or chemistry? Shouldn’t our entire life be focused on the religious aspect? Lewis gives several reasons why learning about “secular” subjects is important, all with which I agree. First, he says that abolishing a good cultural life will only result in a worse cultural life. “If you don't read good books you will read bad ones. If you don't go on thinking rationally, you will think irrationally. If you reject aesthetic satisfactions you will fall into sensual satisfactions.” Furthermore, as 1 Corinthians 10:31 states, “whatever you do, do it for the glory of God.” This implies that whatever we do, including going to school, can be done for God’s glory. If we have been given scholarly talents, we ought to use them for God’s glory. Additionally, as we learn from Dutch theologian Abraham Kuyper, every square inch of the world belongs to God. Whatever subject we are studying, we are learning about God’s world and thereby learning about God. A final reason why learning about secular topics is important is for the sake of evangelism. If all Christians are utterly uneducated, the educated people that do not know the Lord would scoff at us, and disregard everything we say. We need to be able to connect with non-Christians, and being educated is an important part of that.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Fall
In Plantinga’s third chapter of Engaging God’s World, he discusses the Fall of Man. One interesting item he mentions is the difference between evil and sin. He defines evil as “any deviation from the way God wants things to be”. Sin, Plantinga tells us, is “any evil for which somebody is to blame.” The example he gives is a child picking up a gun. This is evil, but not sin, because no one is to blame. I think Plantinga misses a huge point here. What he fails to understand, or at least fails to point out, is that evil is a result of sin. Before Eve took the fruit, there was no evil whatsoever (or as Calvin College insists on saying it, there was complete and perfect shalom). We, as mankind, are at fault for evil in our world, because we sinned in the Garden of Eden thereby releasing evil to the world. (Of course, Satan was in the Garden with Adam and Eve. Satan was definitely evil, but evil had not infiltrated every aspect of life on Earth yet.)
I find it very interesting that Plantinga, the president of Calvin Theological Seminary, denies doctrine which the Christian Reformed Church holds to be true. Plantinga qualifies total depravity in saying that we aren’t “as nasty as we could be” or that “we always choose the worst alternative”, while the Heidelberg Catechism states in question and answer eight that we are indeed “so corrupt that we are wholly incapable of doing any good, and inclined to all evil.”
Finally, I liked what Plantinga wrote in the section entitled “Who’s to Blame?” He talks about how we Christians often blame God or Satan for our sins. However, since God is completely holy, he cannot cause us to sin. He allows it, since he is almighty (we cannot understand why God ever allowed sin to enter the world), but he is not at fault. Satan, on the other hand, cannot cause us to sin because he is so much less powerful than God. Satan can tempt us, but he cannot coerce us. We are always able to resist temptation, with God’s help. What it comes down to is that, although God allows it, although Satan tempts us, we are the ones who engage in acts contrary to God’s Law. We are at fault for our sin.
I find it very interesting that Plantinga, the president of Calvin Theological Seminary, denies doctrine which the Christian Reformed Church holds to be true. Plantinga qualifies total depravity in saying that we aren’t “as nasty as we could be” or that “we always choose the worst alternative”, while the Heidelberg Catechism states in question and answer eight that we are indeed “so corrupt that we are wholly incapable of doing any good, and inclined to all evil.”
Finally, I liked what Plantinga wrote in the section entitled “Who’s to Blame?” He talks about how we Christians often blame God or Satan for our sins. However, since God is completely holy, he cannot cause us to sin. He allows it, since he is almighty (we cannot understand why God ever allowed sin to enter the world), but he is not at fault. Satan, on the other hand, cannot cause us to sin because he is so much less powerful than God. Satan can tempt us, but he cannot coerce us. We are always able to resist temptation, with God’s help. What it comes down to is that, although God allows it, although Satan tempts us, we are the ones who engage in acts contrary to God’s Law. We are at fault for our sin.
The Poison of Subjectivism
One of the most prevalent ideas in intellectual circles today is that the old is bad. Progress is vital to our survival; if we do not change, we will die. Everything that has been around for awhile must be improved. C.S. Lewis combats this idea and others in his essay “The Poison of Subjectivism.” It is true that some things require change; for example, if water goes too long without moving it becomes stagnant and dirty. However, as Lewis says, “To infer thence that whatever stands long must be unwholesome is to be the victim of metaphor. Space does not stink because it has preserved its three dimensions from the beginning.” Lewis also offers other examples of ideas that have permanence, such as math or love. Of course, progress is necessary for many ideas, or we would still have slavery in the United States, we would still have cruel child labor, and equal wages for women would be impossible. However, Lewis argues a point on which I agree: our moral standard is constant. “If good is a fixed point, it is at least possible that we should get nearer and nearer to it; but if the terminus is as mobile as the train, how can the train progress towards it?” This shows that true progress can only be achieved if the moral law remains unchanged. We cannot confuse stagnations with permanence.
Another point Lewis makes that I find intriguing is how false it is that “the ethical standards of different cultures differ so widely that there is no common tradition at all”. As we saw in class yesterday, throughout history (including ancient history), ethical standards remain constant. Whether it is from the ancient Hebrews, the ancient Egyptians, the ancient Babylonians, Australian aborigines, medieval law, or modern American ideals, man knows that it is wrong to kill another man. It is wrong to be lazy, as we learn from Aesop (the tortoise and hare), the Bible (Prov. 10:4), and modern culture (those who make no effort to find work are looked down upon). While it is true that punishment of committing crimes against Natural Law have changed quite a bit (Old Testament Law informs the death penalty for many sins, and the death penalty for murder has been abolished in many states), the fact remains that some things are right and some things are wrong. We are instilled with a conscience; there is a Natural Law that all humans know to follow, even though we follow it poorly.
The last question is which came first: the Moral Law (and thereby, goodness) or God? If goodness (and the Law) is simply defined by God, then God did not originate with goodness; He invented goodness, and he could just be “an omnipotent fiend” who calls Himself good. On the other hand, if God commands the Law simply because it is good, then there is something higher than God; God is merely the messenger of what already existed. The only explanation is that they are one in the same. God is goodness itself. God instructs us to follow the Moral Law because it is in fact a part of Him.
Another point Lewis makes that I find intriguing is how false it is that “the ethical standards of different cultures differ so widely that there is no common tradition at all”. As we saw in class yesterday, throughout history (including ancient history), ethical standards remain constant. Whether it is from the ancient Hebrews, the ancient Egyptians, the ancient Babylonians, Australian aborigines, medieval law, or modern American ideals, man knows that it is wrong to kill another man. It is wrong to be lazy, as we learn from Aesop (the tortoise and hare), the Bible (Prov. 10:4), and modern culture (those who make no effort to find work are looked down upon). While it is true that punishment of committing crimes against Natural Law have changed quite a bit (Old Testament Law informs the death penalty for many sins, and the death penalty for murder has been abolished in many states), the fact remains that some things are right and some things are wrong. We are instilled with a conscience; there is a Natural Law that all humans know to follow, even though we follow it poorly.
The last question is which came first: the Moral Law (and thereby, goodness) or God? If goodness (and the Law) is simply defined by God, then God did not originate with goodness; He invented goodness, and he could just be “an omnipotent fiend” who calls Himself good. On the other hand, if God commands the Law simply because it is good, then there is something higher than God; God is merely the messenger of what already existed. The only explanation is that they are one in the same. God is goodness itself. God instructs us to follow the Moral Law because it is in fact a part of Him.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Mere Christianity
One of the most interesting points I find in C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity is not even found in the body of the book, but the preface. Here he defines what “mere” Christianity is (Although I have heard the book title many times, I have never known what it meant.): he explains that sometimes it is advantageous to look at Christianity not as numerous denominations holding many doctrinal standards, but merely as Christianity in general. This is what Lewis does in Mere Christianity. As a Christian apologist, Lewis undertook the difficult task of evaluating, even arguing, Christianity from an outside perspective. He looked at it instead of along it, to use his terminology. I agree with Lewis when he says “Our divisions should never be discussed except in the presence of those who have already come to believe that there is one God and that Jesus Christ is His only Son.” After all, if we are witnessing to those who do not believe, they wouldn’t have very much desire to know God if they see us arguing points that relate to matters less than “mere” Christianity. For example, fighting with someone about eschatological interpretations of Revelation would just confuse a non-Christian and make him think Christianity is divisive and offers no real Truth; it just causes more problems.
Another interesting point Lewis brings up in the preface is the definition of the word “Christian”. Apparently some of his contemporaries objected to him trying to identify what a Christian was, as if he were judging people. “May not many a man who cannot believe these doctrines be far more truly a Christian, far closer to the spirit of Christ, than some who do?” asked his critics. To explain this, Lewis tells us the history of the word “gentleman,” and how it used to simply mean someone who had a coat of arms and owned land. Over time, it traded in its factual meaning for a “deeper” one, and now means someone who acts how the gentlemen of old were supposed to act. As Lewis says, if people are allowed to start deepening the meaning of the word “Christian,” it will cease to be related to the Bible; Christian will be synonymous with “good person” or “gentleman”. In fact, it is significantly more judgmental to call someone a good person than it is to call someone a Christian, meaning someone who believes “that there is one God and that Jesus Christ is His only Son.”
One final point that I really like that Lewis makes is found in chapter one. He tells us that there is a Natural Law, a standard of behavior, for mankind. The best proof I found of this in the text in when Lewis talks about making excuses. If there were no standard, we would not attempt to give reasons why our actions are justified, why they comply with the standard.
Another interesting point Lewis brings up in the preface is the definition of the word “Christian”. Apparently some of his contemporaries objected to him trying to identify what a Christian was, as if he were judging people. “May not many a man who cannot believe these doctrines be far more truly a Christian, far closer to the spirit of Christ, than some who do?” asked his critics. To explain this, Lewis tells us the history of the word “gentleman,” and how it used to simply mean someone who had a coat of arms and owned land. Over time, it traded in its factual meaning for a “deeper” one, and now means someone who acts how the gentlemen of old were supposed to act. As Lewis says, if people are allowed to start deepening the meaning of the word “Christian,” it will cease to be related to the Bible; Christian will be synonymous with “good person” or “gentleman”. In fact, it is significantly more judgmental to call someone a good person than it is to call someone a Christian, meaning someone who believes “that there is one God and that Jesus Christ is His only Son.”
One final point that I really like that Lewis makes is found in chapter one. He tells us that there is a Natural Law, a standard of behavior, for mankind. The best proof I found of this in the text in when Lewis talks about making excuses. If there were no standard, we would not attempt to give reasons why our actions are justified, why they comply with the standard.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Screwtape Letters: Letter XII
Although it is only a few pages of The Screwtape Letters, Letter XII is one of the most powerful and eye-opening passages I have ever read. It directly applies to my own life in nearly every aspect and really shows how dangerously I have been living. In the letter Screwtape encourages Wormwood in his temptation of “the patient”. Specifically, this letter addresses lukewarm living, and how once a person becomes spiritually comfortable, that is when they can be furthest from God. If someone stops pursuing God and merely becomes content with his spiritual state, the devil will use the false confidence to mask what he is really doing. In Screwtape’s words, “My only fear is lest in attempting to hurry the patient you awaken him to a sense of his real position.” We cannot always accurately see our own position. We may think that, because we are going to church, we have an adequate spiritual life. This thought can mask what is really happening: we are just going through the motions, slowly slipping away from God. It would almost be better if we didn’t go to church at all. Then, at least, we would not have any false confidence; then, at least, we would be able to realize there is something missing. Admittedly, a churchgoer may still feel what Lewis calls “a dim uneasiness”. However, the devil can use even this to his advantage: it amplifies our unwillingness to think about God. “When thinking of Him involves facing and intensifying a whole vague cloud of half-conscious guilt, this reluctance is increased tenfold.” We might have an inkling that there is something not right, but we refuse to fully acknowledge it, because then we’ll have to deal with it and cease being comfortable. In order to maintain this comfort, we will continue to perform our religious duties (e.g. go to church, do devotions, even pray), but we will not enjoy it. They will become just that: duties.
I very much fear that this is happening to me. When I read this letter for the first time during Prelude I was amazed at how well it described me. I have always thought of myself as a “good Christian”, but I have never been passionate about my faith. I don’t do the big sins like murder that Screwtape talks about in the last paragraph, but I am brimming with small sins. These are often obscured by the false spiritual confidence I have. It scares me to read, “Indeed, the safest road to Hell is the gradual one—the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts.” To all who are reading this, I ask that you pray that my life be instilled with passion, that I work on becoming uncomfortable, that I regularly take a step back to look at my faith, to ensure I am not slowly slipping down this gentle slope. Please pray that the Holy Spirit fills me so that I can live for Christ wholeheartedly and constantly, instead of just marginally and sometimes, as I have been. Please pray that God shines a light on my dim uneasiness, so that my errors are apparent to me and I can stop slipping backwards.
I very much fear that this is happening to me. When I read this letter for the first time during Prelude I was amazed at how well it described me. I have always thought of myself as a “good Christian”, but I have never been passionate about my faith. I don’t do the big sins like murder that Screwtape talks about in the last paragraph, but I am brimming with small sins. These are often obscured by the false spiritual confidence I have. It scares me to read, “Indeed, the safest road to Hell is the gradual one—the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts.” To all who are reading this, I ask that you pray that my life be instilled with passion, that I work on becoming uncomfortable, that I regularly take a step back to look at my faith, to ensure I am not slowly slipping down this gentle slope. Please pray that the Holy Spirit fills me so that I can live for Christ wholeheartedly and constantly, instead of just marginally and sometimes, as I have been. Please pray that God shines a light on my dim uneasiness, so that my errors are apparent to me and I can stop slipping backwards.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Beautiful Savior
I would like to expand on one of my previous posts, "The Weight of Glory". I mentioned how Nature, while beautiful, is a poor reflection of the glory we will experience in heaven. Immediately when I read this, I thought of the powerful hymn "Beautiful Savior", written by German Jesuits in the seventeenth century. Like all hymns, this one is timeless and means just as much today as it ever did. The second and third verses directly apply to the idea that while nature can point us toward Chirst, Christ will always be infinitely fairer.
Beautiful Savior!
King of creation!
Son of God and Son of Man!
Truly I'd love Thee
Truly I'd serve Thee,
Light of my soul, my joy, my crown.
Fair are the meadows,
Fair are the woodlands,
Robed in flowers of blooming spring;
Jesus is fairer,
Jesus is purur;
He makes our sorrowing spirit sing.
Fair is the sunshine,
Fair is the moonlight,
Bright the sparkling stars on high;
Jesus shines brighter,
Jesus shines purer
Than all the angels in the sky.
Beautiful Savior!
Lord of the nations!
Son of God and Son of Man!
Glory and honor,
Praise, adoration,
Now and forevermore be Thine!
This video includes verses two and four, in addition to many pictures of God's beatiful (yet lacking) creation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2r2y3v5LxSI
Beautiful Savior!
King of creation!
Son of God and Son of Man!
Truly I'd love Thee
Truly I'd serve Thee,
Light of my soul, my joy, my crown.
Fair are the meadows,
Fair are the woodlands,
Robed in flowers of blooming spring;
Jesus is fairer,
Jesus is purur;
He makes our sorrowing spirit sing.
Fair is the sunshine,
Fair is the moonlight,
Bright the sparkling stars on high;
Jesus shines brighter,
Jesus shines purer
Than all the angels in the sky.
Beautiful Savior!
Lord of the nations!
Son of God and Son of Man!
Glory and honor,
Praise, adoration,
Now and forevermore be Thine!
This video includes verses two and four, in addition to many pictures of God's beatiful (yet lacking) creation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2r2y3v5LxSI
Creation
In Plantinga's second chapter, he discusses various aspects of Creation. One topic he talks about is why God created the earth and its inhabitants. I agree with Plantinga that there are two schools of thought that are incorrect. One is that God was bored or lonely. I don’t believe this is true: because God was engaged in what the Greeks called perichoresis, the divine dance among the His three Persons. God cannot be lonely, as he inherently exists in community. The second incorrect school of thought is that God needed us. This is an even more grievous mistake than the first. God is not in any way dependent on us. He is independently omnipotent. God doesn’t need to be entertained or comforted by us; we please him, but we are not necessary. So the question remains: why did God create the universe? Plantinga offers an answer. He says, “Given God’s interior life that overflows with regard for others, we might say creation is an act that was fitting for God.” In other words, it was part of God’s creative character to form the world; it was an overflowing of his love into a physical manifestation. This can be likened to an artist, who doesn’t paint because he is bored, or because he needs to, but simply because it is part of his character to paint.
Another topic I found interesting is rooted in Genesis 1:26. It states, “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” For years, those following Judaism or Christianity have taken this to mean that we can do whatever we want with the world; it was given to us as a gift. However, I see it also as a responsibility. After all, this same verse talks about how we are in God’s likeness. Doesn’t that mean we should act like God? God rules over us, yet he uses providence to do so; that means that everything he does is for our good. He cares for us. We should reflect this care by ruling over the earth and its lesser inhabitants in such a way that benefits the planet rather than in one that harms it. While I believe Calvin College overemphasizes this idea by stressing it more than any other biblical principle, we should still keep in mind that we are caretakers and ought to reflect God in this way.
Another topic I found interesting is rooted in Genesis 1:26. It states, “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” For years, those following Judaism or Christianity have taken this to mean that we can do whatever we want with the world; it was given to us as a gift. However, I see it also as a responsibility. After all, this same verse talks about how we are in God’s likeness. Doesn’t that mean we should act like God? God rules over us, yet he uses providence to do so; that means that everything he does is for our good. He cares for us. We should reflect this care by ruling over the earth and its lesser inhabitants in such a way that benefits the planet rather than in one that harms it. While I believe Calvin College overemphasizes this idea by stressing it more than any other biblical principle, we should still keep in mind that we are caretakers and ought to reflect God in this way.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
The Weight of Glory
One of the weightiest topics in theology is that of heaven. C.S. Lewis doesn’t avoid the difficult topic in his sermon “The Weight of Glory”. While the Bible does not offer very many explicit details regarding heaven (what it does offer is probably symbolic), Lewis delves into the idea of the glory that we will have in heaven. At first he explains how the glory of heaven is a reward for our Christian life. When I read this at first, I disagreed with Lewis; after all, eternal life shouldn’t be our motive for following God; like the Heidelberg Catechism says, our motive needs to be one of gratitude for God’s grace. However, Lewis reconciles this by showing how there are two kinds of rewards: the natural reward (for love, this would be marriage) and the reward of the mercenary (for love, this could be money). Using this terminology, the glory of heaven is the natural reward for our faith: it is not the reason for our faith, but it is an outcome. Of course, many of us become Christians because we want to go to heaven or, more likely, we fear hell. Are those of us with such motives not true Christians? Absolutely not! Our initial motives almost always change over the course of our faith. I believe God can use even fear to bring about love and devotion.
Next, Lewis explores the meaning of the word “glory”. What we most often think of when we hear this word, Lewis says, are fame and luminosity. I agree with Lewis when he says that “to be famous means to be better known than other people, the desire for fame appears to me as a competitive passion and therefore of hell rather than heaven”. However, when we define fame as “appreciation by God”, it makes a lot more sense. After all, it is a biblical idea that God can be pleased with us. Maybe this is what glory means. Secondly, luminosity should not be taken literally, but should be synonymous with beauty. The glory we will have in heaven will not only allow us to see beauty, but will unite us with beauty. I really like how Lewis explains how the Nature we see here on earth is merely a poor reflection of the beauty and splendor we will experience and be connected to in heaven. One important thing I see in Nature is how it can point us to God. A beautiful landscape suggests greater beauty. Creation suggests a Creator.
The final point I’d like to make is Lewis’ last point as well. He says, “All day long we are, in some degree, helping each other to [heaven or hell]”. This sentence contains an incredible amount of responsibility. We must be very careful in everything we do to shine God’s Light through our words and actions, because we never know how God may use us to bring others to Him, or even more overwhelming, to deter others from knowing Him.
Next, Lewis explores the meaning of the word “glory”. What we most often think of when we hear this word, Lewis says, are fame and luminosity. I agree with Lewis when he says that “to be famous means to be better known than other people, the desire for fame appears to me as a competitive passion and therefore of hell rather than heaven”. However, when we define fame as “appreciation by God”, it makes a lot more sense. After all, it is a biblical idea that God can be pleased with us. Maybe this is what glory means. Secondly, luminosity should not be taken literally, but should be synonymous with beauty. The glory we will have in heaven will not only allow us to see beauty, but will unite us with beauty. I really like how Lewis explains how the Nature we see here on earth is merely a poor reflection of the beauty and splendor we will experience and be connected to in heaven. One important thing I see in Nature is how it can point us to God. A beautiful landscape suggests greater beauty. Creation suggests a Creator.
The final point I’d like to make is Lewis’ last point as well. He says, “All day long we are, in some degree, helping each other to [heaven or hell]”. This sentence contains an incredible amount of responsibility. We must be very careful in everything we do to shine God’s Light through our words and actions, because we never know how God may use us to bring others to Him, or even more overwhelming, to deter others from knowing Him.
Our English Syllabus
There are three purposes to schooling, C.S. Lewis expresses in his essay “Our English Syllabus”: vocational training, education, and learning. He first explains how both Milton and Aristotle agree that education’s purpose is to produce a “good man,” or as Lewis later says a “human”. Some object to this moniker, as well as to Lewis’ comparison to uneducated people as “animals”. However, I don’t think Lewis is saying that the uneducated are less than human in God’s eyes or even in the world’s eyes, at least in general. He uses “human” and “animal” in the intellectual sense. Without education, someone cannot reach his maximum potential intellectually. In fact, he is like an animal in the sense that all he does is related to his vocation. Education gives us the ability to be leisurely instead of focused only on work, like the animal or the person who goes to school solely to get a job. While it is necessary to have vocational training in our schools, it is crucial we keep education to preserve the dynamic of our civilization: if people are schooled exclusively in subjects needed to get a job, we could become like the barbarians in history who did what they needed to do to survive and that was all. We need additional schooling to preserve culture and civilization.
The second distinction Lewis makes is that between education and learning. I agree with Lewis when he argues that, in education, the teacher is the superior who tries to mold his students into complete intellectual humans. We all heard hundreds of times in high school that we were being prepared for college. Education does just that: it prepares us for the learning that should occur in college. In learning we are intellectual equals with our teachers; we have achieved the status of “good men” or “humans”. In learning, there is a personal “thirst for knowledge”, as Lewis calls it. I agree with Lewis that college should be a place of learning; we should take classes in subjects in which we are interested, and we should learn for the sake of learning. However, as more occupations than ever require college degrees, the pure pursuit of learning is not realistic.
One other interesting thing I found was the attitude we should take to our post-secondary schooling. If we are excited about our classes instead of just thinking we have to take them, we will be better educated. Seek learning, and you will be educated; seek education, and you will learn nothing.
Finally, Lewis tells us that if we do not choose what we want to learn, “The educational ideals of a particular age, class, and philosophy of life would be stamped on your whole career.” I think this is true of Calvin College in a couple of different ways. First, Calvin is a Christian college. It attempts to better us spiritually in addition to academically. However, there are also ideals that aren’t essentially Christian that Calvin wants to stamp on our lives. Calvin’s fixation with diversity and bettering the environment permeate many different areas of life at Calvin. Instead of encouraging us to choose for ourselves what is important to us, Calvin tells us what should be important.
The second distinction Lewis makes is that between education and learning. I agree with Lewis when he argues that, in education, the teacher is the superior who tries to mold his students into complete intellectual humans. We all heard hundreds of times in high school that we were being prepared for college. Education does just that: it prepares us for the learning that should occur in college. In learning we are intellectual equals with our teachers; we have achieved the status of “good men” or “humans”. In learning, there is a personal “thirst for knowledge”, as Lewis calls it. I agree with Lewis that college should be a place of learning; we should take classes in subjects in which we are interested, and we should learn for the sake of learning. However, as more occupations than ever require college degrees, the pure pursuit of learning is not realistic.
One other interesting thing I found was the attitude we should take to our post-secondary schooling. If we are excited about our classes instead of just thinking we have to take them, we will be better educated. Seek learning, and you will be educated; seek education, and you will learn nothing.
Finally, Lewis tells us that if we do not choose what we want to learn, “The educational ideals of a particular age, class, and philosophy of life would be stamped on your whole career.” I think this is true of Calvin College in a couple of different ways. First, Calvin is a Christian college. It attempts to better us spiritually in addition to academically. However, there are also ideals that aren’t essentially Christian that Calvin wants to stamp on our lives. Calvin’s fixation with diversity and bettering the environment permeate many different areas of life at Calvin. Instead of encouraging us to choose for ourselves what is important to us, Calvin tells us what should be important.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Longing and Hope
In the first chapter of his book Engaging God’s World, Cornelius Plantinga Jr. discusses the ideas of longing and of hope. He first expresses how all humans long for something. This longing can take many different forms, from longing for a season of the year, to longing for a favorite vacation spot, to the nostalgic longing of the days of the past. Plantinga goes on to say that all of these longings are unfulfillable. I find this very true in my own life. I often long for the days of my childhood, when everything was simple and full of wonderment and without stress. However, there is no way I can go back to this childhood, or even an adulthood which exhibits these characteristics. The same is true of other longings. Nothing we can ever do will completely fulfill what we long for. There will always be something that is missing, something that is less than ideal, something that leaves us still hungry. The only thing which we can long for that will leave us fulfilled is Jesus Christ. In fact, he will not only satisfy our longing, but will greatly surpass what our original desires. Another interesting aspect of longing is that humans have an innate sense of wanting something beyond what they see in this world. This sensus divinitatis, as Calvin called it, causes a longing for something more. For some of us, our sensus divinitatis, which God bestowed upon us, leads us to God Himself. It will cause others to look for other religions, search for a higher truth in themselves, or futilely try to find fulfillment in worldly things like drugs or sex.
Plantinga also addresses the idea of hope. One of the most important thoughts Plantinga conveys in this section is that real hope is not for oneself, but for others. It is easy to hope that your own life becomes better, that you do well at your new job, that your family loves you. However, this is selfishness, not real hope. Hope is much broader than that; it encourages us to reach out like the early church did. Hope also combats evil with action. Without action, hope can be merely meaningless words. Finally, hope requires imagination. If we confine ourselves to just what we know, we are only hoping for a fraction of what must be done in the world. We must hope for people on the other side of the globe, and we must hope for people that do not yet exist. We must imagine being in someone else shoes in order to properly hope for them.
Plantinga also addresses the idea of hope. One of the most important thoughts Plantinga conveys in this section is that real hope is not for oneself, but for others. It is easy to hope that your own life becomes better, that you do well at your new job, that your family loves you. However, this is selfishness, not real hope. Hope is much broader than that; it encourages us to reach out like the early church did. Hope also combats evil with action. Without action, hope can be merely meaningless words. Finally, hope requires imagination. If we confine ourselves to just what we know, we are only hoping for a fraction of what must be done in the world. We must hope for people on the other side of the globe, and we must hope for people that do not yet exist. We must imagine being in someone else shoes in order to properly hope for them.
We Have No "Right to Happiness"
The second sentence of the United States Constitution informs us that the founding fathers thought than man had certain unalienable rights, including the subject of this post: the right to happiness. C.S. Lewis argues that we do not have any right to happiness. The example he gives involves a case of adultery, in which two unmarried people decide that they would be happier if they were married to each other. Each person divorces their spouse and they achieve happiness. Lewis concedes that while there was a legal right for such an action, but that there is no moral right for it. For most of the essay, Lewis addresses sexual happiness. Many people, Lewis says, find that the right to sexual happiness is more important than other kinds. In other words, people think someone stealing money to pursue happiness is wrong, but divorcing a spouse to be happy with a mistress is an unalienable right. Lewis cleverly compares this idea to a morality in which one may not steal fruit, unless the fruit is a nectarine. I completely agree with Lewis when he gives the reason why many people find that sexual happiness is a right. He says that erotic passion is, while brief, stronger than other passions. Additionally, being in love gives us the idea that we will be in love forever, therefore giving us happiness forever. If we don’t indulge in sexual happiness, we will be miserable forever, they think.
At the heart of sexual morality are many other virtues: faithfulness, honesty, kindness, etc. A right to sexual happiness implies a right to ignore these virtues. If we ignore these virtues in the realm of sexual happiness, what is to stop us from ignoring them in other fields of life?
I believe that we do not have the right to anything except a one-way ticket to hell. Our sin doesn’t give us a right to anything. All we have is a gift from God; our salvation, our happiness, our possessions, and our relationships are privileges, not rights. We are to respond with gratitude. As Christians, God will not always give us happiness throughout our lives. What we must remember is that God uses everything that happens to us, including events in our lives that are not full of happiness. Even though God will not grant us happiness throughout our lives, he will use every moment in our lives to make our final joy complete.
At the heart of sexual morality are many other virtues: faithfulness, honesty, kindness, etc. A right to sexual happiness implies a right to ignore these virtues. If we ignore these virtues in the realm of sexual happiness, what is to stop us from ignoring them in other fields of life?
I believe that we do not have the right to anything except a one-way ticket to hell. Our sin doesn’t give us a right to anything. All we have is a gift from God; our salvation, our happiness, our possessions, and our relationships are privileges, not rights. We are to respond with gratitude. As Christians, God will not always give us happiness throughout our lives. What we must remember is that God uses everything that happens to us, including events in our lives that are not full of happiness. Even though God will not grant us happiness throughout our lives, he will use every moment in our lives to make our final joy complete.
Friday, January 8, 2010
Bulverism
Ezekiel Bulver grew up in a household with arguing parents. This is not unusual in itself; what is unusual is the manner in which Bulver's parents argued. Instead of proving each other wrong, each parent would assume the other is wrong, and inform why they are wrong. Young Bulver witnessed this and realized that disproving is an unnecessary aspect of argument. He grew up and changed the world with this discovery; now everyone simply assumes his/her opponent is wrong without attempting to prove it.
While Ezekiel Bulver is fictitious (in fact, his story never came to fruition), his idea, the titular subject of C.S. Lewis' "Bulverism", is indeed real. In fact, it is tragically thriving still today. Lewis' essay, found in God in the Dock, sheds light on a very relevant topic. Closely related to the last post's subject (looking at versus looking along), Bulverism is a result of narrow-mindedness and involves one selfishly assuming he/she is right without taking a step away and actually analyzing both sides of the argument. The example Lewis gives involves him thinking he has a large balance at the bank. One practicing Bulverism would assume it is merely wishful thinking and wouldn't actually do the number-crunching himself to see if Lewis is correct.
I think the most interesting aspect of Bulverism involves the distinction between "reasons" and "causes". Reasons are inferences that we form based on data; in other words, reasons are based on logic. Conversely, causes are motives not based on logic that lead us to believe something. For example, if I am a prisoner on death row, and I oppose the death penalty because I don't want to die, my belief is based on a cause. On the other hand, if I am a prisoner on death row, and I oppose the death penalty because I sincerely think it is wrong to kill someone for their past sins against society, my belief is based on a reason. A Bulverist will argue that his/her opponent's beliefs are entirely based on causes, and that his/her own are based entirely on reasons. To avoid Bulverism, we must take a step back, and we must look at the problem itself, in lieu of looking at why people believe things about the problem.
From my observations, the most prolific arena of Bulverism is the political realm. Politicians will always assume that they have the right answers for everything. This leads them to believe that there is no point in taking a step back and examining the issue at hand. Instead, they spend all of their energy arguing why their opponents believe what they do. Society would improve drastically if politicians looked at issues objectively. Politicians, however, are not the only ones to blame. We, the voters, are also guilty of being Bulverists. When we vote, we assume socialism is wrong because socialists just want it because of their poverty. We assume capitalism is wrong because capitalists just want it because it would increase their wealth. Just like the need to look along as well as at, we need to develop a strong case of humility in order to admit we aren't always right.
If only Ezekiel Bulver had never triumphed this wretched idea.
While Ezekiel Bulver is fictitious (in fact, his story never came to fruition), his idea, the titular subject of C.S. Lewis' "Bulverism", is indeed real. In fact, it is tragically thriving still today. Lewis' essay, found in God in the Dock, sheds light on a very relevant topic. Closely related to the last post's subject (looking at versus looking along), Bulverism is a result of narrow-mindedness and involves one selfishly assuming he/she is right without taking a step away and actually analyzing both sides of the argument. The example Lewis gives involves him thinking he has a large balance at the bank. One practicing Bulverism would assume it is merely wishful thinking and wouldn't actually do the number-crunching himself to see if Lewis is correct.
I think the most interesting aspect of Bulverism involves the distinction between "reasons" and "causes". Reasons are inferences that we form based on data; in other words, reasons are based on logic. Conversely, causes are motives not based on logic that lead us to believe something. For example, if I am a prisoner on death row, and I oppose the death penalty because I don't want to die, my belief is based on a cause. On the other hand, if I am a prisoner on death row, and I oppose the death penalty because I sincerely think it is wrong to kill someone for their past sins against society, my belief is based on a reason. A Bulverist will argue that his/her opponent's beliefs are entirely based on causes, and that his/her own are based entirely on reasons. To avoid Bulverism, we must take a step back, and we must look at the problem itself, in lieu of looking at why people believe things about the problem.
From my observations, the most prolific arena of Bulverism is the political realm. Politicians will always assume that they have the right answers for everything. This leads them to believe that there is no point in taking a step back and examining the issue at hand. Instead, they spend all of their energy arguing why their opponents believe what they do. Society would improve drastically if politicians looked at issues objectively. Politicians, however, are not the only ones to blame. We, the voters, are also guilty of being Bulverists. When we vote, we assume socialism is wrong because socialists just want it because of their poverty. We assume capitalism is wrong because capitalists just want it because it would increase their wealth. Just like the need to look along as well as at, we need to develop a strong case of humility in order to admit we aren't always right.
If only Ezekiel Bulver had never triumphed this wretched idea.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Meditations in a Toolshed
C.S. Lewis makes an important distinction of viewpoint in his essay "Meditations in a Toolshed." He opines that there are two ways of perception: at and along. Looking at something involves an external, detached point of view, whereas looking along something relies on an internal, attached viewpoint. Lewis goes on to say how we cannot be prejudiced against either method, but rather, we are to look at each example and decide whether looking at or looking along reveals the "truer" or "more valid" experience. And then, of course, we must have the humility to admit that we do not have the capability to know everything; we must be willing to admit that for some examples, such as that of being in love, we do now know which viewpoint is reality. Regardless, we must be able to look both at and along if we are to avoid narrow-mindedness.
From my observations, today's academic society (and Lewis' too, apparently, as he was denied full professorship at Oxford University because of his faith) relies on looking at everything. This is especially true of religion; most scholars take a detached point of view when looking at the topic of faith, so that they can make objective observations. As Christians, however, we know that, in order to understand Christianity, looking along is integral. Looking at will result in no relationship with Jesus Christ, which is the crux of our faith. Additionally, prayer would be meaningless.
When then, is the proper time to look at our Christian faith? One time is when we are examining it. Once in a while, we ought to take a step back and analyze how we have been living with respect to what the Bible says about how we should be living. Another time is when we are witnessing to others. Those who are not Christians look at our faith and along their own beliefs. In order to connect with others, we must have the ability to detach ourselves (both temporarily and partially, of course) from our own beliefs as well as look along theirs, to an extent. We must understand those to whom we witness if they are to understand us.
As far as looking at and along nonreligious issues, the correct way will vary. One example Lewis gives in "Meditations" is a child with a broken doll who feels as though she has lost a friend. Of course, we know she hasn't really lost a friend, but a doll, and looking only along would give us a false sense of reality. However, looking partially along even in this case is useful in understanding the child's pain. In other cases, looking at will get us into trouble. After all, a sole reliance on looking at is meaningless, as we can forever take steps back. All thought can be analyzed by someone else. The analysis of this someone else can be analyzed as well. There is no end to it.
The correct way, I believe, to deal with these two viewpoints is to have the ability to use both. Having the ability to use only one will engender narrow-mindedness. We must decide for each case which perspective reveals the "truer" reality, or we must humbly decide that we cannot know: both perspectives are needed.
From my observations, today's academic society (and Lewis' too, apparently, as he was denied full professorship at Oxford University because of his faith) relies on looking at everything. This is especially true of religion; most scholars take a detached point of view when looking at the topic of faith, so that they can make objective observations. As Christians, however, we know that, in order to understand Christianity, looking along is integral. Looking at will result in no relationship with Jesus Christ, which is the crux of our faith. Additionally, prayer would be meaningless.
When then, is the proper time to look at our Christian faith? One time is when we are examining it. Once in a while, we ought to take a step back and analyze how we have been living with respect to what the Bible says about how we should be living. Another time is when we are witnessing to others. Those who are not Christians look at our faith and along their own beliefs. In order to connect with others, we must have the ability to detach ourselves (both temporarily and partially, of course) from our own beliefs as well as look along theirs, to an extent. We must understand those to whom we witness if they are to understand us.
As far as looking at and along nonreligious issues, the correct way will vary. One example Lewis gives in "Meditations" is a child with a broken doll who feels as though she has lost a friend. Of course, we know she hasn't really lost a friend, but a doll, and looking only along would give us a false sense of reality. However, looking partially along even in this case is useful in understanding the child's pain. In other cases, looking at will get us into trouble. After all, a sole reliance on looking at is meaningless, as we can forever take steps back. All thought can be analyzed by someone else. The analysis of this someone else can be analyzed as well. There is no end to it.
The correct way, I believe, to deal with these two viewpoints is to have the ability to use both. Having the ability to use only one will engender narrow-mindedness. We must decide for each case which perspective reveals the "truer" reality, or we must humbly decide that we cannot know: both perspectives are needed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
