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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
