Throughout my life as a Christian I have struggled with how to grapple with my faith, and how to share it with others in a way that would be effective. Growing up in a strong Christian family with my father being a pastor and my mother , a woman after God’s own heart was great for a foundation and an example, but one thing that may have been disadvantageous for a while was the complacency that caused for a while. When one is in such an atmosphere one can become stagnant in the Christian Walk, because you feel you already know everything, and there is no need to learn.
Although recently I have been able to learn much more about my convictions and have grown in my faith considerably, this class has spurred me to learn even more, and apply logic and reasoning to my faith, something that people tend to find contradictory. The guidance of Plantinga and CS Lewis have been of tremendous importance in teaching me day by day more about the fundamental pillars of my faith, and have allowed me ways to share my faith effectively.
The first Chapter of Plantinga touched on issues that I myself have thought about many a time. I had always throughout my life felt an unexplainable longing for something more, whether in a relationship, friendship or even when I created an artwork. There was always an intangible standard I was measuring things to, a kind of longing for something greater and bigger. As Plantinga states in the first chapter, we cannot be fulfilled by anything we wish for, and nothing on this earth can satisfy us. Lewis calls this kind of longing Sehnsucht, “seeking union with something from which we are separated.” But what is it I had been longing for?
At the time I thought it was true happiness, after all, that’s what our world seems to be in pursuit of. However, after reading Lewis’s “No Right to Happiness” I discovered that that was not, in fact what I was longing for. I learnt from that reading that happiness is not something that is guaranteed us in our Christian lives, but rather we are encouraged to seek and long for the Lord’s joy that he freely offers us. We, in fact have no right to demand happiness from God, or demand anything else for that matter, as everything has been given to us by grace. We all experience happy moments in our lives, but we need to realize that it would be very unwise to chase something as impermanent as happiness when we have been promised something deeper and higher: joy. Put simply in his words, “Our Father refreshes us on the journey with some pleasant inns, but will not encourage us to mistake them for home.”
The question I most often find myself facing when discussing my faith is the “can’t I just lead a good life without being Christian?” one, and before reading Lewis my answer to this was always fuzzy. The paper, “Man or Rabbit?” talks about this clearly without reservations. When we ask this we are actually trying to evade the actual question; whether or not there is truth to the Christian or Materialistic claims. As Lewis puts it, when people pay no attention to the real question, whether or not Christianity is true, they can stay “safe and blameless without knocking at that dreadful door and making sure whether there is, or isn't someone inside?” It seems to stem from a dread that there could actually be some truth in the rumor, if he knows that there is no truth to it, he would not be asking the question at all.
Another thing I found a great help was the reading, “Meditation in a Tool shed”, especially when I am trying to discuss my faith with others. The concept of looking at things is what has pervaded our modern thought. We have come to the conclusion that the “external account of a thing somehow refutes or ‘debunks’ the account given from inside” so we are reluctant to take anything seriously that is explained from the inside because it cannot be quantified or analyzed or measured from an external viewpoint. However Lewis impresses on us the importance of looking at things from both viewpoints, because if the outside vision were the correct one, all thought would be valueless, and this is self contradictory. You cannot have a proof that no proofs matter.”
This leads to the development of Lewis’s rational apologist arguments in Mere Christianity. I have never come across such clear logic to explain the Moral law, the struggling point for many unbelievers, because they know that is what would convict them, as it does all of us. The most vital point he made to me was that simply because we are taught something does not mean it is a human construct. He uses math as a parallel for this, mathematics exists independent of the methods we use to order and categorize it. In the same way, Moral law exists.
The Plantinga chapter on Creation was one which provided fresh insight into the phenomenon which we call creation, an act that was completely in the nature of our God. I had usually skimmed over this part of the creation story because I felt it was negated by our chaotic fall. However, I have learnt the gravity of the the creation in the first place.
One great point that was made was that God did not need to create us, as he already had relationships within the Trinitarian perichoresis and was clearly not simply bored, but rather because t was within his nature to create. This I felt was a great insight into the very nature of God, we see glimpses of his glory in nature, what we see around us, but that is not who he is, it is not a part of himself, but simply a demonstration of his personality.
This relates quite closely to “The Weight of Glory”. In the reading I see the amazing illustration of the relationship between the Creator and created. Glory, as he defines it it not “luminosity” but a kind of “approval or (I might say) “appreciation’ by God” which he backs up with the text “well done thou good and faithful servant” explaining that this kind of recognition is the greatest thing that can be bestowed on one, the recognition by God the pleasure of the “inferior” specifically of a “creature before its Creator”. This is the greatest honor that we can be promised, to be singled out by our Lord and praised for the humble attempts we have made to serve him.
Probably the most applicable thing I learnt from the readings was “Learning in War Time” when Lewis enlightens us with the knowledge that “Christianity does not simply replace our natural life and substitute a new one: it is rather a new organization which exploits, to its own supernatural ends, these natural materials.” We must do everything we do to the glory of God, there is no need to go out and do something grand and public, but rather, God takes pleasure in us serving him in our everyday activities, which for me, is going to school. Plantinga agrees with this in his fifth chapter, on vocation, we all have a part to play in the furthering of God’s kingdom in our activities. At this time, my education is where I have been placed, and thus I must learn to the glory to God.
Plantinga’s writing has allowed me to think about the classic Christian ideas in a new light, understanding them in their full gravity, and the writings of Lewis have completed and complimented them, putting them rationally in such a way that even the most stubborn debator would have to agree without “bulverising”. This class has been incredibly important in developing concepts that are not just useful in explaining my faith, but also in developing it, and growing closer to God and the knowledge of his ways.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Monday, January 25, 2010
"The Inner Ring"
In this essay Lewis talks of the occurrences of and dangers of what he calls, “inner rings”, groups that can be found almost everywhere in life that we all belong to. According to Lewis, Inner rings are not a bad thing in and of themselves as people will always feel the need to be part of some kind of group (or faction, as its sometimes called). “The inner ring” helps us to examine the groups that we all find ourselves in and our motivation for wanting to be in them.
One main point he makes is about the strong desire we have to join these groups and the feeling of rejection and exclusion from being "in the know" when we are left outside one. This causes people to do whatever is necessary to join, whether good or bad. This is where the danger lies. This is definitely an important point, as we observe this every day . In my experience, a lot of people I know have joined groups of friends simply because they wanted to seem “cool” and likeable and ended up doing things that they regret greatly now. In my own experience, I remember trying to fit in with a group of girls who were in my dorm in high school. People soon began to see us as a very exclusive group and assumed we were stuck-up. Due to this I lost a few of my old friends, and once I realized this I backed out of the clique.
“A thing may be morally neutral and yet the desire for that thing may be dangerous”... The problem with inner rings is that our desire to be in one is usually derived from the desire to exclude others from them, and this can even happen accidentally. The issue of excluding others from a group was especially evident to me in high school. There were cliques that I never felt comfortable approaching, but probably the most exclusive were within cultural boundries. There were many groups amongst students from different countries, as my school was an international boarding school, but although this did help us to learn a lot about one another, it did also create cliques. This is one of the dangers of larger inner rings, such as patriotic circles, as Prof. Paulo mentioned.
I find that Lewis’s solution to the problem, merely staying out of cliques and naturally finding people who are doing the same actually works. I realized that this was what I had done in the latter part of my high school experience, and I ended up with the best friends I’ve ever had.
One main point he makes is about the strong desire we have to join these groups and the feeling of rejection and exclusion from being "in the know" when we are left outside one. This causes people to do whatever is necessary to join, whether good or bad. This is where the danger lies. This is definitely an important point, as we observe this every day . In my experience, a lot of people I know have joined groups of friends simply because they wanted to seem “cool” and likeable and ended up doing things that they regret greatly now. In my own experience, I remember trying to fit in with a group of girls who were in my dorm in high school. People soon began to see us as a very exclusive group and assumed we were stuck-up. Due to this I lost a few of my old friends, and once I realized this I backed out of the clique.
“A thing may be morally neutral and yet the desire for that thing may be dangerous”... The problem with inner rings is that our desire to be in one is usually derived from the desire to exclude others from them, and this can even happen accidentally. The issue of excluding others from a group was especially evident to me in high school. There were cliques that I never felt comfortable approaching, but probably the most exclusive were within cultural boundries. There were many groups amongst students from different countries, as my school was an international boarding school, but although this did help us to learn a lot about one another, it did also create cliques. This is one of the dangers of larger inner rings, such as patriotic circles, as Prof. Paulo mentioned.
I find that Lewis’s solution to the problem, merely staying out of cliques and naturally finding people who are doing the same actually works. I realized that this was what I had done in the latter part of my high school experience, and I ended up with the best friends I’ve ever had.
Paradise Now
The film Paradise Now was an incredible insight into the lives of those who we so often refer to as “perpetrators of terror.” These people are usually dismissed as heretics and brainwashed idiots, and in the process of judging them we many a time discount their humanity and struggles. This movie was an accurate depiction which showed another side of these people without justifying their actions.
The story follows two friends who have been convinced by a Palestinian rebel group to martyr their lives for the cause. The day they are to carry out their plan, there is a slight hitch and the men get separated. Said, the main protagonist and his friend are made to think about their decision much more carefully.
One thing I loved about the movie were the scenes between Said and his mother. They portrayed him in a wayi may have never thought of, a dedicated son living in a working class neighborhood striving for some respect and yearning to help progress what seemed to be a losing cause. Said’s father was a disgrace, and he seeks to make up for his father’s mistakes by his dedication. He is portrayed as a real person with feelings, and people and things he cared about. We notice he wavers at many points during his journey into the Israeli quarters, especially when he pauses at the door of the bus full of women and children. This emphasizes the fact that he was actually thinking about the would-be victims of his actions. However we realize the repercussions of despair by the end, when he spends the day with explosives strapped to his body and decides to go through with the plan. This part drew my attention to the incredible peace I have due to the grace given me. I could have been in the same position of desperation.
Watching the movie, I did not expect Said to make the choice he finally did, choosing to die at the end, but it was the most true way it could have been shown. The leaders of the rebel group did deceive them with their promises of paradise, even to specifics like the angels coming to carry them there, but at the end, it was his own choice. His friend chose differently and chose life. In the same way we are all given a choice.
I realized watching this movie that it is not for us to judge people and feel superior to them because of our salvation, but we must remember that just like them we were lost before we were found.
The story follows two friends who have been convinced by a Palestinian rebel group to martyr their lives for the cause. The day they are to carry out their plan, there is a slight hitch and the men get separated. Said, the main protagonist and his friend are made to think about their decision much more carefully.
One thing I loved about the movie were the scenes between Said and his mother. They portrayed him in a wayi may have never thought of, a dedicated son living in a working class neighborhood striving for some respect and yearning to help progress what seemed to be a losing cause. Said’s father was a disgrace, and he seeks to make up for his father’s mistakes by his dedication. He is portrayed as a real person with feelings, and people and things he cared about. We notice he wavers at many points during his journey into the Israeli quarters, especially when he pauses at the door of the bus full of women and children. This emphasizes the fact that he was actually thinking about the would-be victims of his actions. However we realize the repercussions of despair by the end, when he spends the day with explosives strapped to his body and decides to go through with the plan. This part drew my attention to the incredible peace I have due to the grace given me. I could have been in the same position of desperation.
Watching the movie, I did not expect Said to make the choice he finally did, choosing to die at the end, but it was the most true way it could have been shown. The leaders of the rebel group did deceive them with their promises of paradise, even to specifics like the angels coming to carry them there, but at the end, it was his own choice. His friend chose differently and chose life. In the same way we are all given a choice.
I realized watching this movie that it is not for us to judge people and feel superior to them because of our salvation, but we must remember that just like them we were lost before we were found.
Man or Rabbit?
This addressed a fundamental issue of our modern condition. Can we just be “good” without being Christian? Lewis dissects this question and reveals the real motive behind it, a belief that one can escape the conviction that would come from knowledge that Christianity is actually true. As he puts it, when people ignore the real question, whether or not Christianity is true, they can remain “safe and blameless without knocking at that dreadful door and making sure whether there is, or isn't someone inside?” It seems to stem from a fear that there could actually be some truth in the rumor, if he knows that there is no truth to it, he would not be asking the question at all.
We see this far too much in our current society, probably because we have, if possible, worsened morally. We would not like to be weighed by our countless wrongdoings, so we prefer to circumvent the true issue and instead focus on what we can do to appear “blameless”. This kind of thinking is appealing because we are able to keep from feeling guilty because we feel we are doing a good things. Even Christians do this, and it is important that we eradicate this kind of behavior because it supposes we can curry favor by acting a certain way, meanwhile there is “none who does good, no not one” (Romans 3:12). We cannot simply build our own ladder to heaven with our good works.
Going back to the ostrich-like behavior Lewis speaks of, he tells us that this kind of skirting around the truth, actually intentionally evading the truth, whether it be true or false, is the worst thing one can do. In doing this we are intentionally acting oblivious to the questions that life begs of our existence. We would not be hiding at all if we were not considering the fact that there may be truth to the claim. In ignoring truth we are not interested in acting as we should, but merely trying to bypass our purpose.
CS puts it best: “The idea of reaching 'a good life' without Christ is based on a double error. Firstly, we cannot do it; and secondly, in setting up 'a good life' as our final goal, we have missed the very point of our existence.”
We see this far too much in our current society, probably because we have, if possible, worsened morally. We would not like to be weighed by our countless wrongdoings, so we prefer to circumvent the true issue and instead focus on what we can do to appear “blameless”. This kind of thinking is appealing because we are able to keep from feeling guilty because we feel we are doing a good things. Even Christians do this, and it is important that we eradicate this kind of behavior because it supposes we can curry favor by acting a certain way, meanwhile there is “none who does good, no not one” (Romans 3:12). We cannot simply build our own ladder to heaven with our good works.
Going back to the ostrich-like behavior Lewis speaks of, he tells us that this kind of skirting around the truth, actually intentionally evading the truth, whether it be true or false, is the worst thing one can do. In doing this we are intentionally acting oblivious to the questions that life begs of our existence. We would not be hiding at all if we were not considering the fact that there may be truth to the claim. In ignoring truth we are not interested in acting as we should, but merely trying to bypass our purpose.
CS puts it best: “The idea of reaching 'a good life' without Christ is based on a double error. Firstly, we cannot do it; and secondly, in setting up 'a good life' as our final goal, we have missed the very point of our existence.”
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
EROS
Although quite a challenging read, there were many points made by Lewis that made a sincerely profound impression on me. In this reading he focuses on Eros, the love which we experience when we say we are "in love" with someone.
Through our classroom discussion, I found what was very interesting was the view that Eros was the closest to Agape love than the others, in the way we relate to the person who we direct it towards. However what we noted was that it is the most fallen of all the loves, the most mortal. Why is this we may ask? Well I believe this is because it is the easiest for the Devil to twist into something which seems all fulfilling,it can “come to become a god”, therefore replacing the correct object of our worship, especially when taken too seriously. Lewis says this is not to mean it should not be taken seriously at all, but rather with the correct kind of seriousness.
Another point that was very profound that he made clear in the recording was that Eros does not necessary lead to happiness. In fact, more often, it is the opposite. He however says “we would rather share unhappiness with the beloved than happiness on any other account”. Without very extensive self-examination, I knew that this was very true to me in my personal experience. One finds that they are so drawn to their “beloved” that nothing else seems worth it without them.
One thing I had never really considered, although I so often observe it is the capriciousness of Eros. Lewis says it “promises to be eternal but is notoriously fickle”. That is the great distinguishing factor of Eros, evident in relationship after relationship with men promising their sweethearts the world along with their undying affection, and forgetting the next week.
Lewis, towars the end speaks about the difference between falling in love and being in love. His analogy with the swimming pool and diving into it versus continuing to swim was one that I believe put his point across perfectly. I learnt that the “diving part”, although what we seem to be putting the most emphasis on nowadays, is the easy part; we can fall in love again and again, but this is utterly useless if we do not maintain it by “swimming”. Simply put “falling in lovehappens to you, but being in love is something you do”, something that must be worked at, day by day. In our current society of soaring divorce rates, it seems that there are few who are seeking to do this, and as Christians, we need to recognize this, and reform the trend.
Through our classroom discussion, I found what was very interesting was the view that Eros was the closest to Agape love than the others, in the way we relate to the person who we direct it towards. However what we noted was that it is the most fallen of all the loves, the most mortal. Why is this we may ask? Well I believe this is because it is the easiest for the Devil to twist into something which seems all fulfilling,it can “come to become a god”, therefore replacing the correct object of our worship, especially when taken too seriously. Lewis says this is not to mean it should not be taken seriously at all, but rather with the correct kind of seriousness.
Another point that was very profound that he made clear in the recording was that Eros does not necessary lead to happiness. In fact, more often, it is the opposite. He however says “we would rather share unhappiness with the beloved than happiness on any other account”. Without very extensive self-examination, I knew that this was very true to me in my personal experience. One finds that they are so drawn to their “beloved” that nothing else seems worth it without them.
One thing I had never really considered, although I so often observe it is the capriciousness of Eros. Lewis says it “promises to be eternal but is notoriously fickle”. That is the great distinguishing factor of Eros, evident in relationship after relationship with men promising their sweethearts the world along with their undying affection, and forgetting the next week.
Lewis, towars the end speaks about the difference between falling in love and being in love. His analogy with the swimming pool and diving into it versus continuing to swim was one that I believe put his point across perfectly. I learnt that the “diving part”, although what we seem to be putting the most emphasis on nowadays, is the easy part; we can fall in love again and again, but this is utterly useless if we do not maintain it by “swimming”. Simply put “falling in lovehappens to you, but being in love is something you do”, something that must be worked at, day by day. In our current society of soaring divorce rates, it seems that there are few who are seeking to do this, and as Christians, we need to recognize this, and reform the trend.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Friday, January 15, 2010
Mere Christianity?
Mere Christianity was one of the most rational and clearly thought out apologetic writings I have ever read. Although certainly not a theologian, Lewis points, out with extraordinary logic, how we can be assured that there exists a Natural Law which we inherently expect our fellows to adhere to, even if we deny its being.
One very interesting distinction he points out is that unlike all other natural law, this “Law or Rule of Right and Wrong” Is not how things do act in actuality, but how they should act and do not. This is very important, because even though we have a standard of behavior we seem to try and hold others to, we never uphold it completely ourselves. He rightly says, “Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later.”
He then continues, addressing the skeptics of his premise, easily debunking each. One important question that was posed was as to whether we have simply learnt this standard of behavior in a social context. Lewis’s answer shows us that just because we are taught certain things does not mean they are not “real truths”, the way they are taught are merely conventions which may differ slightly but have the same grounding. Math for instance (what he parallels this to) is simply a way to understand concepts that actually exist.
What he points out in this chapter is also that if we believe that certain “reformers or pioneers” understood morality better than their neighbors did…you are measuring them by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to the standard more nearly than the other”. This was such a great point that has such practical application, in wars and invasions, there is always a similar justification, however you still hear the same people supporting this claiming that there is no “Real Morality.”
Lewis, in all his arguments presents us with a block of pure reason which we cannot try and circumvent without merely contradicting ourselves. I love the quote where he states that there is probably no argument that we are all breaking the Law of Nature, then saying “if there are any exceptions among you, I apologise to them…nothing I am going to say concerns them. And now turning to the ordinary human beings which are left.” His ironic wit was definitely intact.
One very interesting distinction he points out is that unlike all other natural law, this “Law or Rule of Right and Wrong” Is not how things do act in actuality, but how they should act and do not. This is very important, because even though we have a standard of behavior we seem to try and hold others to, we never uphold it completely ourselves. He rightly says, “Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later.”
He then continues, addressing the skeptics of his premise, easily debunking each. One important question that was posed was as to whether we have simply learnt this standard of behavior in a social context. Lewis’s answer shows us that just because we are taught certain things does not mean they are not “real truths”, the way they are taught are merely conventions which may differ slightly but have the same grounding. Math for instance (what he parallels this to) is simply a way to understand concepts that actually exist.
What he points out in this chapter is also that if we believe that certain “reformers or pioneers” understood morality better than their neighbors did…you are measuring them by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to the standard more nearly than the other”. This was such a great point that has such practical application, in wars and invasions, there is always a similar justification, however you still hear the same people supporting this claiming that there is no “Real Morality.”
Lewis, in all his arguments presents us with a block of pure reason which we cannot try and circumvent without merely contradicting ourselves. I love the quote where he states that there is probably no argument that we are all breaking the Law of Nature, then saying “if there are any exceptions among you, I apologise to them…nothing I am going to say concerns them. And now turning to the ordinary human beings which are left.” His ironic wit was definitely intact.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Looking at "The Screwtape Letters"
“Indeed the safest road to Hell is the gradual one—the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts.” This was probably one of the most striking quotes I have come across so far by Lewis. This tells us of the simplicity of the schemes of the evil one to distract us from our path and how this so easily leads us straight into his clutches. Screwtape talks of how when someone begins to only retain “externally the habits of a Christian” he or she is essentially unable to recognize when they are going astray, and there is no conviction. As a result, there is only a “vague though uneasy, feeling that he hasn't been doing very well lately” which of course does nothing to convict one of sins and attain redemption. This of course causes the estrangement that is described. Where one no longer desires to have anything to do with God, and consequently hides from him. This causes a loathing of “religious duties”and a distraction of purpose. One eventually doesn’t even need diabolical prodding, because the lie has already caught hold and won over our hearts and minds.
The bible tells us that the devil only comes to kill steal and destroy. When we think of this we usually don’t realize that what he ultimately wants is not just our flesh to fall, but also our souls. And without “effective contact” with the Almighty, we are lost completely, because we are blind to the devil’s schemes. We must therefore redouble our efforts and clad ourselves in the armor of God, not allowing even the smallest chinks in our armor, because it is through these little sins that the true enemy finds a foothold.
The bible tells us that the devil only comes to kill steal and destroy. When we think of this we usually don’t realize that what he ultimately wants is not just our flesh to fall, but also our souls. And without “effective contact” with the Almighty, we are lost completely, because we are blind to the devil’s schemes. We must therefore redouble our efforts and clad ourselves in the armor of God, not allowing even the smallest chinks in our armor, because it is through these little sins that the true enemy finds a foothold.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Plantinga Chapter 2
Plantinga’s second chapter was an interesting insight into creation, looking not only, as we do so often at how creation was corrupted,but at how it was meant to be in the Beginning by our Creator.
There were two very great points that Plantinga makes in this section; one about the human potential of redemption and the other concerning God’s creation of the universe out of nothing. The first which relates quite well to the previous “Weight of Glory” reading when we consider the fact that if “any human being we meet is potentially redeemable” due to the goodness of creation, we must remember that everyone still has some aspect of goodness, no matter how bad they may seem, and no matter how good a person seems, due to the corruption of God’s creation they have sinned. Therefore, we must treat each person as if they are worth salvation just as much as you are.
The second point reminds us that God created the world from nothing, he has no limitations. We must also remember that His creation may reflect his glory and wonder, but it is not God’s “double” and we cannot think that The universe is God or that it is a part of God’s essence. The most important point I think was made was that we serve an “infinite God” while the world is “finite”. I find that we fall too often to celebrating the wonder of nature and its glory instead of focusing instead on the Glory of the one who created it. Nature does not necessary tell of the nature of the Creator, except that creation is in his nature. When we concentrate on the creation instead of the creator we are “succumbing to the oldest temptation of all,” idolatry.
There were two very great points that Plantinga makes in this section; one about the human potential of redemption and the other concerning God’s creation of the universe out of nothing. The first which relates quite well to the previous “Weight of Glory” reading when we consider the fact that if “any human being we meet is potentially redeemable” due to the goodness of creation, we must remember that everyone still has some aspect of goodness, no matter how bad they may seem, and no matter how good a person seems, due to the corruption of God’s creation they have sinned. Therefore, we must treat each person as if they are worth salvation just as much as you are.
The second point reminds us that God created the world from nothing, he has no limitations. We must also remember that His creation may reflect his glory and wonder, but it is not God’s “double” and we cannot think that The universe is God or that it is a part of God’s essence. The most important point I think was made was that we serve an “infinite God” while the world is “finite”. I find that we fall too often to celebrating the wonder of nature and its glory instead of focusing instead on the Glory of the one who created it. Nature does not necessary tell of the nature of the Creator, except that creation is in his nature. When we concentrate on the creation instead of the creator we are “succumbing to the oldest temptation of all,” idolatry.
The Incredible "Weight of Glory"
Lewis’s “The Weight of Glory” is an incredible insight into that phenomenon which the bible speaks of so much, yet is so difficult for many of us to grasp: our eternal glory. Lewis himself grappled with an accurate definition of this, saying “Either glory means to me fame, or it means luminosity”, discarding the latter with the rather comical query, “who wishes to become a kind of living electric light bulb?”
But he comes to an interesting insight, that the aforementioned fame is not that amongst our fellows, but rather with God, so it is a kind of “approval or (I might say) “appreciation’ by God” which he supports scripturally with the text “well done thou good and faithful servant” explaining that this kind of recognition is the greatest thing that can be bestowed on one, the recognition by God the pleasure of the “inferior” specifically of a “creature before its Creator”.
There were a lot of things that weighed very heavily on my heart when i read this, but out of all of these things was not what Lewis said about our own glory, but that of our neighbor. This whole page was incredible, but on great thing Lewis says is that “The load, or weight, or burden of my neighbour’s glory should be laid daily on my back, a load so heavy that only humility can carry it, and the backs of the proud will be broken.” I think we must realize that there are no “ordinary people” that each and every person has an eternal consequence and because of this we must overlook no one, remembering that each and everyone has the potential to be saved. CS says “But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit—immortal horrors or everlasting
splendours.” Each person is either to attain that glory we hunger and thirst for or cast away. No one is to be taken lightly.
I am very glad I got to share this message with others too, I think this is something we must consider every day, in our interactions with people. They are after all, the next “holiest object presented to your senses.”
This is a little excerpt from a conversation I had with someone about the reading just yesterday (of course, I changed the person’s name.)
[10:48:32 PM] Debbie Yeboah: I will...but Jack, the readings from yesterday were seriously incredible
[10:49:03 PM] Debbie Yeboah: i was reading a paper her wrote abt our eternal glory with God
[10:49:16 PM] Jack: hmmmm..that's great.
[10:49:18 PM] Jack: lol
[10:49:24 PM] Debbie Yeboah: seriously!!!
[10:49:34 PM] Jack: ok…lol
[10:50:07 PM] Jack: dont mind me..wat did it say?
[10:50:07 PM] Debbie Yeboah: it is so powerful, and it actually does change the way you look at people and how u shud relate to them
[10:50:48 PM] Debbie Yeboah: it says that every person we met and talk to and joke with everyday essentially has an eternal consequence
[10:51:02 PM] Debbie Yeboah: each person is an immortal being
[10:51:10 PM] Debbie Yeboah: capable of going one of two ways
[10:51:20 M] Jack: yeah...
[10:51:28 PM] Debbie Yeboah: and everything we do, each action we take can help that person to go either way
[10:51:46 PM]Jack: hmmmm..that’s true..
[10:51:53 PM] Jack: very true
[10:52:40 PM] Debbie Yeboah: the last page of the paper was the most tangibly applicable to me
[10:52:56 PM] Debbie Yeboah: i would send it, but its long
[10:53:09 PM] Debbie Yeboah: the way he explains it is so much better
[10:53:24 PM] Jack: so in other words u want me to read it…sure.
“To please God...to be a real ingredient in the
divine happiness...to be loved by God, not
merely pitied, but delighted in as an artist
delights in his work or a father in a son—it
seems impossible, a weight or burden of
glory which our thoughts can hardly
sustain. But so it is.”
But he comes to an interesting insight, that the aforementioned fame is not that amongst our fellows, but rather with God, so it is a kind of “approval or (I might say) “appreciation’ by God” which he supports scripturally with the text “well done thou good and faithful servant” explaining that this kind of recognition is the greatest thing that can be bestowed on one, the recognition by God the pleasure of the “inferior” specifically of a “creature before its Creator”.
There were a lot of things that weighed very heavily on my heart when i read this, but out of all of these things was not what Lewis said about our own glory, but that of our neighbor. This whole page was incredible, but on great thing Lewis says is that “The load, or weight, or burden of my neighbour’s glory should be laid daily on my back, a load so heavy that only humility can carry it, and the backs of the proud will be broken.” I think we must realize that there are no “ordinary people” that each and every person has an eternal consequence and because of this we must overlook no one, remembering that each and everyone has the potential to be saved. CS says “But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit—immortal horrors or everlasting
splendours.” Each person is either to attain that glory we hunger and thirst for or cast away. No one is to be taken lightly.
I am very glad I got to share this message with others too, I think this is something we must consider every day, in our interactions with people. They are after all, the next “holiest object presented to your senses.”
This is a little excerpt from a conversation I had with someone about the reading just yesterday (of course, I changed the person’s name.)
[10:48:32 PM] Debbie Yeboah: I will...but Jack, the readings from yesterday were seriously incredible
[10:49:03 PM] Debbie Yeboah: i was reading a paper her wrote abt our eternal glory with God
[10:49:16 PM] Jack: hmmmm..that's great.
[10:49:18 PM] Jack: lol
[10:49:24 PM] Debbie Yeboah: seriously!!!
[10:49:34 PM] Jack: ok…lol
[10:50:07 PM] Jack: dont mind me..wat did it say?
[10:50:07 PM] Debbie Yeboah: it is so powerful, and it actually does change the way you look at people and how u shud relate to them
[10:50:48 PM] Debbie Yeboah: it says that every person we met and talk to and joke with everyday essentially has an eternal consequence
[10:51:02 PM] Debbie Yeboah: each person is an immortal being
[10:51:10 PM] Debbie Yeboah: capable of going one of two ways
[10:51:20 M] Jack: yeah...
[10:51:28 PM] Debbie Yeboah: and everything we do, each action we take can help that person to go either way
[10:51:46 PM]Jack: hmmmm..that’s true..
[10:51:53 PM] Jack: very true
[10:52:40 PM] Debbie Yeboah: the last page of the paper was the most tangibly applicable to me
[10:52:56 PM] Debbie Yeboah: i would send it, but its long
[10:53:09 PM] Debbie Yeboah: the way he explains it is so much better
[10:53:24 PM] Jack: so in other words u want me to read it…sure.
“To please God...to be a real ingredient in the
divine happiness...to be loved by God, not
merely pitied, but delighted in as an artist
delights in his work or a father in a son—it
seems impossible, a weight or burden of
glory which our thoughts can hardly
sustain. But so it is.”
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Our English Syllabus-Impressions
The proper question for a freshman is not “what will do me the most good?” but “what do I most want to know?”
As a first year student myself, this pronouncement by CS Lewis causes me to view the difference between learning for learning’s sake and learning for the sake of achievement. In this syllabus Lewis distinguishes the two very clearly, first talking about those who were coming to the college to seek an education, essentially stating that if one came to the college for that reason, they would be losing, because the pursuit of learning had been found to produce “educational value” while the this was not necessarily true of the of the pursuit of education.
He encourages us to forget about the bright ideals of “self-improvement” and instead focus on “some part of reality” to learn about. When I think to apply this to my own life, I feel I may have, in fact, chosen another major at Calvin had I taken my mind completely off the “external necessity” It has been a general rule that college students should concentrate on what can actually get them somewhere in life, up the corporate ladder, rather than what makes them happy to learn about. I completely agree with Lewis that this is not in fact the best way to learn, it restricts your potential and teaches you to simply follow the system, creating us into narrow-minded men and women soley bent on achieving a great undefined something which in its pursuit of great education, comes to very little learning.
This relates to the difference CS places between vocational training and education. He stresses that vocational training is incredibly narrow in scope, teaching only the skills necessary for the job ad nothing else, it makes a “not a good man but a good banker.” It would be beneficial, in his estimation to mix it with education in order to come out with a broader-minded individual.
As a first year student myself, this pronouncement by CS Lewis causes me to view the difference between learning for learning’s sake and learning for the sake of achievement. In this syllabus Lewis distinguishes the two very clearly, first talking about those who were coming to the college to seek an education, essentially stating that if one came to the college for that reason, they would be losing, because the pursuit of learning had been found to produce “educational value” while the this was not necessarily true of the of the pursuit of education.
He encourages us to forget about the bright ideals of “self-improvement” and instead focus on “some part of reality” to learn about. When I think to apply this to my own life, I feel I may have, in fact, chosen another major at Calvin had I taken my mind completely off the “external necessity” It has been a general rule that college students should concentrate on what can actually get them somewhere in life, up the corporate ladder, rather than what makes them happy to learn about. I completely agree with Lewis that this is not in fact the best way to learn, it restricts your potential and teaches you to simply follow the system, creating us into narrow-minded men and women soley bent on achieving a great undefined something which in its pursuit of great education, comes to very little learning.
This relates to the difference CS places between vocational training and education. He stresses that vocational training is incredibly narrow in scope, teaching only the skills necessary for the job ad nothing else, it makes a “not a good man but a good banker.” It would be beneficial, in his estimation to mix it with education in order to come out with a broader-minded individual.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Plantinga Chapter One- Impressions
Plantinga talks of three things in this chapter: Longing, hope and shalom.
Longing I believe is best examined under the impression of that Lewis gives of it, using the German word Sehnsucht, which means ‘seeking union with something from which we are separated.” When we consider this, we realize that everything we long for is something we wish we could have, and in having become apart of, in a way. What Plantinga presents as the sad truth is that we cannot be fulfilled by any of the things we wish for. What he presents as the reason for this though is that nothing on this earth can finally satisfy us. I believe this is because ultimately, we were not created for this world. Everything here is temporary, but where we are meant to be with God, is eternal. The summum bonum of Augustine just clarifies this, and tells us that all we truly long for is God, and everything else we direct this longing to, though we may also want these things is merely a veil covering the actual object of our affection.
Hope is very linked with longing. Plantinga makes it very evident in that if you want something you will hope for it and a strong want is a longing. Shalom shares a similar link with hope and even with longing. In order to reach the state that is described, one of a “universal flourishing, wholeness and delight” we must have fulfilled our longings and hopes have been met. He emphasizes the truth that we are already aware of, that our world has certainly not achieved this at all, with the suffering that we observe all around us.
This chapter helps to present us with the logical ingredients to a world which we can make a change in, one which is worth living in. in order to achieve this we must have imagination, and envision a world where our true longing, that for God, is applied and hoped for for not just ourselves, but for the world, in order to move closer to shalom.
Longing I believe is best examined under the impression of that Lewis gives of it, using the German word Sehnsucht, which means ‘seeking union with something from which we are separated.” When we consider this, we realize that everything we long for is something we wish we could have, and in having become apart of, in a way. What Plantinga presents as the sad truth is that we cannot be fulfilled by any of the things we wish for. What he presents as the reason for this though is that nothing on this earth can finally satisfy us. I believe this is because ultimately, we were not created for this world. Everything here is temporary, but where we are meant to be with God, is eternal. The summum bonum of Augustine just clarifies this, and tells us that all we truly long for is God, and everything else we direct this longing to, though we may also want these things is merely a veil covering the actual object of our affection.
Hope is very linked with longing. Plantinga makes it very evident in that if you want something you will hope for it and a strong want is a longing. Shalom shares a similar link with hope and even with longing. In order to reach the state that is described, one of a “universal flourishing, wholeness and delight” we must have fulfilled our longings and hopes have been met. He emphasizes the truth that we are already aware of, that our world has certainly not achieved this at all, with the suffering that we observe all around us.
This chapter helps to present us with the logical ingredients to a world which we can make a change in, one which is worth living in. in order to achieve this we must have imagination, and envision a world where our true longing, that for God, is applied and hoped for for not just ourselves, but for the world, in order to move closer to shalom.
No Right to Happiness?- Impressions
Definitely a controversial paper, CS Lewis’s discourse on this topic left me with a lot to consider. The query as to whether we have a right to happiness leads to another question, perhaps more pertinent: Do we in fact, have a right to anything at all?
In fact, if we examine that question within a biblical context, we do not. Everything we have has been given us by grace, and we can therefore claim no right to anything on this earth. We cannot then demand to be happy, because we have no stated right to this state of being. Even the government realizes this in stating that we have a right to the “pursuit of happiness”, not the guarantee that we will find it.
Now that we have established that we have no inherent right to this we must examine the actual nature of happiness. Although we may not be guaranteed it, we do often feel it. However what we realize is that happiness is fleeting, and as such to live our lives in such a way that chases after such an impermanent high would be detrimental to us, and distracting from the more important things that God would have us aspire towards, such as joy.
The most poignant thing I realized about this was that happiness is a hint at joy; it can be a manifestation of joy but must not be mistaken for it. Joy is deeper and is assured us in The Lord. As CS Lewis says “we are too easily pleased” when “infinite joy is offered us”. Why should we be content with mere happiness that comes and goes?
Lewis’s essay is for the most part examining one aspect of happiness that we will all encounter in our lives, and is the most often confused with true fulfillment: Sexual happiness. He speaks of how Sexual Happiness has been given many exceptions and been used to “condone all sorts of behaviour that if it had been any other end in view would be condemned as merciless treacherous and unjust.” This is clearly evident in our current society, where sexual happiness has been made precedent over everything else, and whatever means are used to attain it are justified as long as the person is “happy”
In this what we realize is that one person’s happiness will simply impede another’s. Compare this to joy, which can only encourage and find strength in another’s joy.
Lewis warns us that if we continue to assign this privilege to sexual happiness, we will eventually extend it to everything else, causing a total breakdown of our morality, we would have “died at heart”. We must therefore be careful what motives we assign to our pursuit of this intangible stae of being we call happiness.
The Bible says in Matthew 6:33 that we should “seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.” When we apply this to our topic of happiness, we realize that it is good to be happy, and God can add this to our lives, but instead of searching for that, we must search for its source.
In fact, if we examine that question within a biblical context, we do not. Everything we have has been given us by grace, and we can therefore claim no right to anything on this earth. We cannot then demand to be happy, because we have no stated right to this state of being. Even the government realizes this in stating that we have a right to the “pursuit of happiness”, not the guarantee that we will find it.
Now that we have established that we have no inherent right to this we must examine the actual nature of happiness. Although we may not be guaranteed it, we do often feel it. However what we realize is that happiness is fleeting, and as such to live our lives in such a way that chases after such an impermanent high would be detrimental to us, and distracting from the more important things that God would have us aspire towards, such as joy.
The most poignant thing I realized about this was that happiness is a hint at joy; it can be a manifestation of joy but must not be mistaken for it. Joy is deeper and is assured us in The Lord. As CS Lewis says “we are too easily pleased” when “infinite joy is offered us”. Why should we be content with mere happiness that comes and goes?
Lewis’s essay is for the most part examining one aspect of happiness that we will all encounter in our lives, and is the most often confused with true fulfillment: Sexual happiness. He speaks of how Sexual Happiness has been given many exceptions and been used to “condone all sorts of behaviour that if it had been any other end in view would be condemned as merciless treacherous and unjust.” This is clearly evident in our current society, where sexual happiness has been made precedent over everything else, and whatever means are used to attain it are justified as long as the person is “happy”
In this what we realize is that one person’s happiness will simply impede another’s. Compare this to joy, which can only encourage and find strength in another’s joy.
Lewis warns us that if we continue to assign this privilege to sexual happiness, we will eventually extend it to everything else, causing a total breakdown of our morality, we would have “died at heart”. We must therefore be careful what motives we assign to our pursuit of this intangible stae of being we call happiness.
The Bible says in Matthew 6:33 that we should “seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.” When we apply this to our topic of happiness, we realize that it is good to be happy, and God can add this to our lives, but instead of searching for that, we must search for its source.
Friday, January 8, 2010
Bulverism- Reflection
CS Lewis has a great aptitude for pointing out problems of our society that have been so closely integrated into the way we conduct our day-to-day business that we no longer notice their detriment. This paper examines a common ill which we all find ourselves falling to when we engage in arguments, eager to emerge the victors: Bulverism.
Bulverism in my own definition would be assuming a person is wrong without proof and proceeding to explain why this is; attacking the person instead of the problem. Too often when we do this we find that instead of discovering as to whether or not the object of discussion is correct or wrong, we are trying to discredit our opponent, and readily assume they are wrong.
Of course the first thing that pops into our minds when considering this phenomenon is politics, as this is kind of reasoning abounds in many political campaigns. The important issues that are apparently going to be solved by the contenders are ignored in order to attempt to discredit the other’s stances with attacks at the antagonist’s psychology. This of course gets us nowhere, because the important issues are discarded and “reason itself is discredited.”
Unfortunately, when employing Bulverism there can be no clear winner in any argument because it is very easy for both parties to use this logic to oppose one another. Lewis describes it as a “democratic game in the sense that all can play it all day long”, however we soon realize that it is actually no help in actually finding out the truth of the issue, or the actual essence of the problem.
Lewis says that in doing this we end up “trying to proof that all proofs are invalid… the proof that all proofs are invalid must be invalid itself.”
In this reading I found that I could especially relate, probably because of my current major, Political science. Lewis’s caution against Bulverism to us is one that I must be very careful to guard against in my pursuit of a career in politics, being careful not to be on the search for a “ ‘taint’ in the human reasoner”, but rather to search for a “genuine insight.”
Bulverism in my own definition would be assuming a person is wrong without proof and proceeding to explain why this is; attacking the person instead of the problem. Too often when we do this we find that instead of discovering as to whether or not the object of discussion is correct or wrong, we are trying to discredit our opponent, and readily assume they are wrong.
Of course the first thing that pops into our minds when considering this phenomenon is politics, as this is kind of reasoning abounds in many political campaigns. The important issues that are apparently going to be solved by the contenders are ignored in order to attempt to discredit the other’s stances with attacks at the antagonist’s psychology. This of course gets us nowhere, because the important issues are discarded and “reason itself is discredited.”
Unfortunately, when employing Bulverism there can be no clear winner in any argument because it is very easy for both parties to use this logic to oppose one another. Lewis describes it as a “democratic game in the sense that all can play it all day long”, however we soon realize that it is actually no help in actually finding out the truth of the issue, or the actual essence of the problem.
Lewis says that in doing this we end up “trying to proof that all proofs are invalid… the proof that all proofs are invalid must be invalid itself.”
In this reading I found that I could especially relate, probably because of my current major, Political science. Lewis’s caution against Bulverism to us is one that I must be very careful to guard against in my pursuit of a career in politics, being careful not to be on the search for a “ ‘taint’ in the human reasoner”, but rather to search for a “genuine insight.”
meditations in a Toolshed- Reflection
In our current world, we find that by and large most conclusions made and discoveries considered to be accurate and significant are resultant of ‘conclusive’ evidence and scientific analysis. This way of looking at things has become the exclusively ‘right’ way to look at them, anything that cannot be explained quantitively is somehow flawed. It has become a one-sided affair of looking at things as they are when they are stripped of internal connotation and left bare in a jumble of scientific jargon. CS Lewis explores this, and challenges us to examine how we see things in not one, but two ways; not just looking at them, but also looking along them.
Looking at things, the specifically “modern type of thought Lewis shows us that all too often we have accepted the erroneous conviction that the “external account of a thing somehow refutes or ‘debunks’ the account given from inside”, that looking at something is much more correct or “valid”
He makes a very interesting point when discussing the contemporary “thought about nothing.” There is a certain tendency to explain things that we have no true experience in, because we feel that the external analyses of these things are more accurate than those of the people who have been “inside” any of them, or have been looking along them. He says that this is “explaining a thing without knowing what it is” which is precisely what tends to occur, therefore perpetuating empty knowledge. This so often happens especially in discussions about religion, with one person claiming the others experience counts for nothing because it is “flawed” because there are aspects of it that cannot be quantified, analyzed or measured with external knowledge.
It is imperative that in order to discontinue the “rot” that Lewis speaks of, we need to cease to believe that looking at things is the more right way to consider them. His illustration of the 2 physiologists is a very poignant one because it shows how circular this logic is; we will always be misled if like the foolish physiologists we believe that all inside “experiences are misleading.” To get a clear understanding of things we must look both at and along things and see which is the more true in each instance of thought. He puts it well in saying that if the outside vision were the correct one, all thought would be valueless, and this is self contradictory. You cannot have a proof that no proofs matter.”
Looking at things, the specifically “modern type of thought Lewis shows us that all too often we have accepted the erroneous conviction that the “external account of a thing somehow refutes or ‘debunks’ the account given from inside”, that looking at something is much more correct or “valid”
He makes a very interesting point when discussing the contemporary “thought about nothing.” There is a certain tendency to explain things that we have no true experience in, because we feel that the external analyses of these things are more accurate than those of the people who have been “inside” any of them, or have been looking along them. He says that this is “explaining a thing without knowing what it is” which is precisely what tends to occur, therefore perpetuating empty knowledge. This so often happens especially in discussions about religion, with one person claiming the others experience counts for nothing because it is “flawed” because there are aspects of it that cannot be quantified, analyzed or measured with external knowledge.
It is imperative that in order to discontinue the “rot” that Lewis speaks of, we need to cease to believe that looking at things is the more right way to consider them. His illustration of the 2 physiologists is a very poignant one because it shows how circular this logic is; we will always be misled if like the foolish physiologists we believe that all inside “experiences are misleading.” To get a clear understanding of things we must look both at and along things and see which is the more true in each instance of thought. He puts it well in saying that if the outside vision were the correct one, all thought would be valueless, and this is self contradictory. You cannot have a proof that no proofs matter.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)