Tuesday, January 25, 2011
The Magic Never Ends...
We've been on quite a journey this interim and I just want to extend my thanks to the Ribeiro's for there leadership, guidance, and encouragement. Your desire for true learning was plainly evident, both in your words and your lives and it was a blessing and privilege to have been a part of this class. The way that you engage God's world is an inspiration to me and creates in me a passion to do the same. I pray that God will go ahead of you and prepare everything in advance for you in the Netherlands and that there you will find his rich blessings and goodness. I pray that you will be a blessing there as you have been a blessing here. "May the peace of God which transcends all understanding guard you hearts and minds in Christ Jesus." Phil 4:7.
The Human Story
Nate Brees
IDIS 150-07
Profs. Ribeiro & Ribeiro
1/25/11
The Human Story
Examined through the writings of C.S. Lewis and Cornelius Plantinga Jr.
“Creation is neither a necessity nor an accident…Creation is an act of imaginative love” (Plantinga, 23). The human story begins with “an act of imaginative love.” God decided that he desired to the universe because he is a creator God, and at the pinnacle of his creation was mankind. Alone of all creation humanity was declared “very good”. So begins the greatest story of all, a story of horrific crime and cosmic conflict, of romance and a jilted lover, with the greatest plot twist imaginable. It is a story which both never ends and of which the end is already known. A hero beyond our comprehension will return to restore that perfect world that was created and the story will begin again as it was intended to be all along. But all of that was indeed only, as Lewis says, “the cover and the title page: now at last they were beginning Chapter One of The Great Story… which goes on forever: in which every chapter is better than the last” (The Last Battle, 184).
Not only did humanity begin in perfection, it also began in the image of God. “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Gen 1:27, NIV). To be made in the image of God is to be made with a purpose and thus humanity bears that purpose. Lewis refers to that purpose as the “weight of glory”. “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” (Weight of Glory, 6). As we see from this definition, our purpose is more dependent upon God than it is upon ourselves. It is true that we have a small part to play but it is like the moon reflecting the sun. We create no light of our own; we are only to reflect the light that shines on us. In his book, Waking the Dead, John Eldredge writes, "We were created to reflect God's glory, born to bear his image, and he ransomed us to reflect that glory again...your heart bears a glory". What a glorious beginning (pun fully intended).
Along with our glorious nature as image bearers, we also reflect God through our desire for unity. Human beings have a deep desire within them that they cannot fulfill with anything of this world. It is a deep desire for the source of our glory, a desire to get in. Lewis writes, “We do not want merely to see beauty, though, God knows, even that is bounty enough. We want something else which can hardly be put into words—to be united with the beauty we see, to pass into it, to receive it into ourselves, to bathe in it, to become part of it” (Weight of Glory,8). Plantinga deals with longing as well quoting Augustine saying, “O Lord, you have made us for yourself, and our heart is restless until it rests in you” (Plantinga,6). This desire is so deeply rooted that even after sin enters the world this desire is still there, leaving us unsatisfied with sinful desires. We may bury it deeply but it always leaves us unsatisfied with the world. Lewis calls it “the inconsolable secret in each one of you—the secret which hurts so much that you take your revenge on it by calling it names like Nostalgia and Romanticism and Adolescence” (Weight of Glory, 3). This longing plays a key role in the human story and features prominently in the chapters of the fall and redemption.
So far, it may seem that humanity is the subject and even the protagonist of this greatest story ever told. That is not at all the truth. Mankind is in no way the protagonist, and is generally much more an object, in fact the object. Mankind is at the center of a cosmic struggle between God, who is both author and protagonist and Satan, the antagonist. Humanity is indeed the subject however, in regards to the fall. It is a sad truth that when humanity becomes the subject, divinity seems to lose ground. For it is in the fall that humanity can claim full responsibility they were tempted yes, but the James tells us that “each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed” (James 1:14,NIV). It seems that human beings have developed a habit of choosing precisely what will do them the most harm. Plantinga notes, “human beings…have so often chosen to live against God, against each other, and against God’s world. We live even against ourselves” (Plantinga, 50). The fall has fully corrupted humanity; we are now totally depraved.
In its depravity, the earth fell to the enemy. Satan took over and became “the prince of this world” (John 16:11, NIV). Lewis writes in Mere Christianity of this world as enemy territory, and Christ as the invader. In an almost unbelievable move, God sends the best he has to try to reclaim the earth, he sends his son, but not as the omnipotent king that he is, but as a human being. For 33 years, Jesus was a part of this world that he had created and for the final three years, he launched a crusade against the devil. Satan was pushed back and suffered losses on every front. The sick were healed, his demons were driven out, the hypocrites were exposed, and hundreds and thousands began to follow Christ. It was short lived though and it seemed disaster struck. Humanity once again made a choice and this time they chose to kill their greatest hope. The Son of God hung on a cross, condemned by sinful men. The devil rejoiced, and Heaven wept as darkness covered the earth.
Yet the battle was not over and the story has hardly begun. In the greatest turnaround in history, Jesus rose triumphant on the third day, bringing redemption to the world. Keith Green in his song “The Victor” appropriately describes the most spectacular espionage ever perpetrated.
His plan of battle fooled them all
They led Him off to prison to die
But as He entered Hades Hall
He broke those hellish chains with a cry
Just listen to those demons screaming
See Him bruise the serpent's head
The prisoners of Hell
He's redeeming (Oh!)
All the power of death is dead.
Redemption arrived and God was restoring the original paradise he had planned. Hope was restored. Mankind now had a way to escape from the kingdom of darkness. This is where desire returned to play a role, where longing could lead the sinners to repentance. Plantinga writes, “Jesus entered the world to offer the penance we refuse” (81). Jesus took our place and paid for our sins, bridging the gap between God and us and giving us a chance to fulfill the longing that we feel so intensely. Plantinga writes about this regeneration and portrays it as becoming who we truly are, who we were made to be. "In the terms Jesus used to describe the prodigal son, regeneration is the mysterious turn of the heart towards home "when he came to himself"(Plantinga, 90). Lewis confirms this by writing of a return to our original glory, “When human souls have become as perfect in voluntary obedience as the inanimate creation is in its lifeless obedience, then they will put on its glory, or rather that greater glory of which Nature is only the first sketch” (Weight of Glory, 8).
What is left for us then is to join the redemptive invasion. Humanity now can choose between Heaven and Hell and there is a cosmic battle over every soul. For those who have chosen Heaven, our job is then to fulfill our purpose: To reflect that glory which God is shining upon us and if possible by that glory to bring out the glory in others. Lewis explains our task by saying, “The load, or weight or burden of my neighbour’s glory should be laid daily on my back” (Weight of Glory, 9). We are to work to redeem all of creation, “Indeed it is God’s plan to gather all things in Christ” (Plantinga, 122). God gives each of us a task in this invasion, a vocation, in which we are to seek to redeem both the people and materials we work with. The people are given special importance because they are eternal. Lewis points out that we are all either “immortal horrors or everlasting splendours” and that we “have never met a mere mortal.” Everyone is progressing towards either Heaven or Hell and as redeemed Christians; we are called to add to the numbers destined for splendor.
Thus, the part of the story that we know draws to close. We have been whispered the ending, or rather the lack of ending, and look forward to it with great excitement, if we side with the invader, or else great trepidation, if we have chosen the side of the prince of darkness. The oft quoted line of the hymn by Doyle Lawson, “Life has many choice, Eternity has two” rings true. The human part of the redemption effort is small but it is necessary. As Lewis writes in The Great Divorce, “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘Thy will be done.’ All that are in Hell, choose it” (69).
Bibliography:
Eldredge, John. Waking the Dead. Nashville: Nelson Books, 2003. Print.
"Eternity has Two." Help is on the Way. Crossroads, 2008. CD
Green, Keith. "The Victor." Keith Green: The Ministry Years 1977-197. n.d. CD.
Lewis, Clive S. Mere Christianity. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1952. Print.
Lewis, Clive S. The Great Divorce. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1946. Print.
Lewis, Clive S. The Last Battle. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1956. Print.
Lewis, Clive S. "The Weight of Glory." Church of St Mary the Virgin. Oxford. 8 June 1942. Lecture.
Plantinga, Cornelius. Engaging God's World: A Reformed Vision of Faith, Learning, and Living. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2002. N. pag. Print.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Pain! Evil or a Gift with which to Fight Evil?
In chapter six of The Problem of Pain, C.S. Lewis presents his view of pain stating that, "Pain is unmasked, unmistakable evil." It is important to mention that here Lewis is defining pain as, "Any experience, whether
physical or mental, which the patient dislikes." In contrast to Lewis philosophy on pain is the position of Dr. Paul Brand, a medical missionary to leprosy patients in India. Dr. Brand entitled on of his books, The Gift of Pain, in which he uses examples from his work with lepers to argue that pain is in fact, although unpleasant and often horrible, a gift, which prevents evil from continuing to grow unchecked.
I agree with Dr. Brand on this and feel that Lewis has missed and important distinction. Lewis justification for his statement that pain is evil is that "Every man knows that something is wrong when he is being hurt." While I agree with that statement it does not follow that because a man knows that something is wrong when in pain, that it is the pain itself that is wrong. To make such an assumption is equivalent to saying that the sign that tells a man who is lost that he is in quite the wrong location is incorrect. For once I feel that Lewis surprisingly, did not logically examine his premises and conclusions to ensure that the conclusion did in fact follow from those premises.
Pain is merely that road sign that points to something being wrong. It tells us that all is not right with the world but it in itself is not what is wrong, it is merely the messenger. Another point that I'd like to make is that it may not always be a messenger of evil. The fact that something is not entirely right might not necessarily mean that it is evil. I say might because I'm only now thinking this through and someone may well have strong evidence to the contrary. However, as an example, it would seem that quite an amount of the physical pain we feel in everyday life is not necessarily attributable to evil. Would you say that stubbing you toe is evil? Or that breaking a finger playing basketball is evil? Or indeed that any of these pains that come from natural causes such as those are evil? If one of you says yes, that it is evil or a result of evil then I would love to hear your reasoning . My reasoning for believing they are not evil is that it seems to me that pain did not enter the world with the fall but rather with creation. I find it hard to believe that it was impossible for Adam and Eve to get hurt in the Garden of Eden, that they never cut their feet on rocks, pricked their fingers on thorns, or stubbed their toes on tree roots. There is also the verse Genesis 3:16, which says "Unto the woman he said, 'I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing." To say increase seems to imply that there is all ready a certain amount of pain present. While it is arguable that it could mean increase from zero, typically if something was absent before one does not increase it but rather create it. Again I am not sure of the theological soundness of this position as of yet and would love to hear opposing opinions.
So far I've only dealt with why it isn't evil, now I turn to how it can be a gift. Dr. Brand talks about how with the disease of leprosy, the disease itself does not cause the skin problems, or missing fingers, or open sores. Rather it is the lack of pain that leads to a patient not being able to tell when the have a rash or not feeling the heat of a stove or not knowing that they have an open cut on their elbow. Their lack of pain makes it possible for these problems to persist, so much so that a leper placing their hand inadvertently in boiling water would not instantly remove it but might leave it there until they see or hear the water boiling and connect it to the location of their hand. They can completely destroy themselves without realizing it because they cannot feel any pain. Pain is how we recognize that something is wrong. Without pain that issue continues and can grow and fester and destroy our lives. This goes for not only for physical issues but emotional and spiritual as well. Pain is the gift that reveals what's wrong so that we can address the problem or in some cases avoid any serious problem all together.
Pain may not be pleasant, but that is necessary so that we cannot ignore it and must recognize the damage we are doing to ourselves. The devil doesn't care so much about causing us pain now and in fact might actually help you avoid it, as long as he can eventually lead you to a place where pain will be all you know. Pain is a gift from God that helps us live in a fallen world.
physical or mental, which the patient dislikes." In contrast to Lewis philosophy on pain is the position of Dr. Paul Brand, a medical missionary to leprosy patients in India. Dr. Brand entitled on of his books, The Gift of Pain, in which he uses examples from his work with lepers to argue that pain is in fact, although unpleasant and often horrible, a gift, which prevents evil from continuing to grow unchecked.
I agree with Dr. Brand on this and feel that Lewis has missed and important distinction. Lewis justification for his statement that pain is evil is that "Every man knows that something is wrong when he is being hurt." While I agree with that statement it does not follow that because a man knows that something is wrong when in pain, that it is the pain itself that is wrong. To make such an assumption is equivalent to saying that the sign that tells a man who is lost that he is in quite the wrong location is incorrect. For once I feel that Lewis surprisingly, did not logically examine his premises and conclusions to ensure that the conclusion did in fact follow from those premises.
Pain is merely that road sign that points to something being wrong. It tells us that all is not right with the world but it in itself is not what is wrong, it is merely the messenger. Another point that I'd like to make is that it may not always be a messenger of evil. The fact that something is not entirely right might not necessarily mean that it is evil. I say might because I'm only now thinking this through and someone may well have strong evidence to the contrary. However, as an example, it would seem that quite an amount of the physical pain we feel in everyday life is not necessarily attributable to evil. Would you say that stubbing you toe is evil? Or that breaking a finger playing basketball is evil? Or indeed that any of these pains that come from natural causes such as those are evil? If one of you says yes, that it is evil or a result of evil then I would love to hear your reasoning . My reasoning for believing they are not evil is that it seems to me that pain did not enter the world with the fall but rather with creation. I find it hard to believe that it was impossible for Adam and Eve to get hurt in the Garden of Eden, that they never cut their feet on rocks, pricked their fingers on thorns, or stubbed their toes on tree roots. There is also the verse Genesis 3:16, which says "Unto the woman he said, 'I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing." To say increase seems to imply that there is all ready a certain amount of pain present. While it is arguable that it could mean increase from zero, typically if something was absent before one does not increase it but rather create it. Again I am not sure of the theological soundness of this position as of yet and would love to hear opposing opinions.
So far I've only dealt with why it isn't evil, now I turn to how it can be a gift. Dr. Brand talks about how with the disease of leprosy, the disease itself does not cause the skin problems, or missing fingers, or open sores. Rather it is the lack of pain that leads to a patient not being able to tell when the have a rash or not feeling the heat of a stove or not knowing that they have an open cut on their elbow. Their lack of pain makes it possible for these problems to persist, so much so that a leper placing their hand inadvertently in boiling water would not instantly remove it but might leave it there until they see or hear the water boiling and connect it to the location of their hand. They can completely destroy themselves without realizing it because they cannot feel any pain. Pain is how we recognize that something is wrong. Without pain that issue continues and can grow and fester and destroy our lives. This goes for not only for physical issues but emotional and spiritual as well. Pain is the gift that reveals what's wrong so that we can address the problem or in some cases avoid any serious problem all together.
Pain may not be pleasant, but that is necessary so that we cannot ignore it and must recognize the damage we are doing to ourselves. The devil doesn't care so much about causing us pain now and in fact might actually help you avoid it, as long as he can eventually lead you to a place where pain will be all you know. Pain is a gift from God that helps us live in a fallen world.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Vocation: Some Disappointments
I apologize ahead of time that this post is somewhat of a rant, so proceed at your own discretion. I do feel there was good material but I could not help but focus on the parts I disagreed with.
I finished reading Plantinga's chapter on vocation with a somewhat bitter taste in my mouth. The rest of the book had been mostly enjoyable and often illuminating. This chapter however, disappointed me and left me wanting a more direct and complete approach to vocation. There were two main areas reasons that I was not satisfied with Plantinga after this chapter.
The first of those two reasons was that I felt Plantinga was a little to shameless and brazen about throwing in a plug for Calvin. I feel that Calvin is a great school and I am very excited to be a part of it however I felt that Plantinga's presentation of the school was both out of place and incomplete. Firstly, I'll deal with incomplete. Plantinga brings up how the Calvin's curriculum has been designed "to help you love the Lord our God with all you mind, and then to love your neighbor as yourself with a life of educated service" He also talks about how Calvin strives to wrestle with big issues such as evolution and Nietzschean thought. Plantinga however, talks only of design and the design is not reality. That is not to say that the design is not helpful and that Calvin operates entirely other than the design, but to speak only of the design does not reveal the struggles and the flaws in the implementation of that plan. And as I said earlier this was not the place to bring up that design in the first place. The chapter was designed to talk about vocation not about Calvin College. While the vocation of most of the people who will ever read this book to be at Calvin College that does not mean that Calvin College becomes then the topic of discussion, vocation itself should still be central. It should already be clear to the students reading the book that vocation is an important topic to wrestle with and one that Calvin stresses, as that is made apparent by the fact that they have been assigned to read the chapter in the first place.
My second issue with this chapter was it's treatment of secular universities, which I saw as somewhat hypocritical in light of what Plantinga said earlier in the chapter. I will explain that in a moment. Plantinga's description of secular universities is quite daunting and negative. The picture he paints is bleak and he implies that the majority of Christian students attending such universities will get sucked into academic atheism even while retaining a personal faith. I can understand the fear and I agree with Plantinga that secular universities can be daunting places and difficult ones for Christians to shine their light in. However, Plantinga's argument that secular universities are lions dens which only a few Daniels should brave while Christian universities are the primary place where students can learn their vocation, is to me contradictory to his own earlier ideas of vocation. Are not Christian called to ever field? Called to every occupation? Why then should only such a small number be called to secular universities? Plantinga talks about how Christians should enter every occupation and seek to reform it. The occupation of college student at a secular university is certainly one that needs reforming, so why does the book seem to discount that as a viable vocation for most? Secular universities need Christians and if a Christian answers the vocation to go to one God will provide a way for them to think just as deeply about their future vocation (though perhaps without using the term vocation which is very much a Calvin term) as any student attending Calvin would.
I finished reading Plantinga's chapter on vocation with a somewhat bitter taste in my mouth. The rest of the book had been mostly enjoyable and often illuminating. This chapter however, disappointed me and left me wanting a more direct and complete approach to vocation. There were two main areas reasons that I was not satisfied with Plantinga after this chapter.
The first of those two reasons was that I felt Plantinga was a little to shameless and brazen about throwing in a plug for Calvin. I feel that Calvin is a great school and I am very excited to be a part of it however I felt that Plantinga's presentation of the school was both out of place and incomplete. Firstly, I'll deal with incomplete. Plantinga brings up how the Calvin's curriculum has been designed "to help you love the Lord our God with all you mind, and then to love your neighbor as yourself with a life of educated service" He also talks about how Calvin strives to wrestle with big issues such as evolution and Nietzschean thought. Plantinga however, talks only of design and the design is not reality. That is not to say that the design is not helpful and that Calvin operates entirely other than the design, but to speak only of the design does not reveal the struggles and the flaws in the implementation of that plan. And as I said earlier this was not the place to bring up that design in the first place. The chapter was designed to talk about vocation not about Calvin College. While the vocation of most of the people who will ever read this book to be at Calvin College that does not mean that Calvin College becomes then the topic of discussion, vocation itself should still be central. It should already be clear to the students reading the book that vocation is an important topic to wrestle with and one that Calvin stresses, as that is made apparent by the fact that they have been assigned to read the chapter in the first place.
My second issue with this chapter was it's treatment of secular universities, which I saw as somewhat hypocritical in light of what Plantinga said earlier in the chapter. I will explain that in a moment. Plantinga's description of secular universities is quite daunting and negative. The picture he paints is bleak and he implies that the majority of Christian students attending such universities will get sucked into academic atheism even while retaining a personal faith. I can understand the fear and I agree with Plantinga that secular universities can be daunting places and difficult ones for Christians to shine their light in. However, Plantinga's argument that secular universities are lions dens which only a few Daniels should brave while Christian universities are the primary place where students can learn their vocation, is to me contradictory to his own earlier ideas of vocation. Are not Christian called to ever field? Called to every occupation? Why then should only such a small number be called to secular universities? Plantinga talks about how Christians should enter every occupation and seek to reform it. The occupation of college student at a secular university is certainly one that needs reforming, so why does the book seem to discount that as a viable vocation for most? Secular universities need Christians and if a Christian answers the vocation to go to one God will provide a way for them to think just as deeply about their future vocation (though perhaps without using the term vocation which is very much a Calvin term) as any student attending Calvin would.
Man or Rabbit?
"Can't you lead a good life without believing in Christianity?" People asked Lewis to write on this topic and Lewis gave them much more than they bargained for with his answer I am sure. That is because Lewis in his answer does not simply answer the question phrased by their lips but the one formed in their hearts. He cuts past their outward projection into their true motives. Many people today ask that same question and we like Lewis should seek to move beyond that simple question to the much more meaningful one that is at it's root.
Lewis hits the mark when he says, "If he hadn't heard of Christianity he would not be asking this question (that of whether you can lead a good life without being Christian). If, having heard of it, and having seriously considered it, he had decided it was untrue, then once more he would not be asking th question. The man who asks this question has heard of Christianity and is by no means certain that it may not be true. He is really asking 'Need I bother about it?'" The crux of the matter hinges on whether Christianity is important, whether in obeying or disobeying Christianity one might avoid damnation. The question in its simplest and lowest terms is need I do anything at all that would require a form of work, intellectual challenge, or alteration of my lifestyle?
I think that once a person asking that initial question understood what it was in fact that they were asking, they would be able to give themselves the answer quite easily. I don't think that they are unaware that they must change and engage the ideas in world but rather that they desire not too. That desire has led to them throwing up ramshackle defenses of and empty arguments to distract them from the true issue at hand.
Any human encountering the idea of Christianity must then for the sake of discovering truth engage it. As Lewis writes "Here is a door, behind which, according to some people the secret of the universe is waiting for you. Either that's true or it isn't. and if it isn't then what the door really conceals is simply the greatest fraud, the most colossal sell on record. Isn't the job of every man to try to find out which and then devote his full energies either to serving this tremendous secret or to exposing and destroying this gigantic humbug?" To be a man is question and search for truth. Anyone who encounters such a claim whether Christianity or other and does not proceed to search for the truth is more rabbit than man.
Lewis hits the mark when he says, "If he hadn't heard of Christianity he would not be asking this question (that of whether you can lead a good life without being Christian). If, having heard of it, and having seriously considered it, he had decided it was untrue, then once more he would not be asking th question. The man who asks this question has heard of Christianity and is by no means certain that it may not be true. He is really asking 'Need I bother about it?'" The crux of the matter hinges on whether Christianity is important, whether in obeying or disobeying Christianity one might avoid damnation. The question in its simplest and lowest terms is need I do anything at all that would require a form of work, intellectual challenge, or alteration of my lifestyle?
I think that once a person asking that initial question understood what it was in fact that they were asking, they would be able to give themselves the answer quite easily. I don't think that they are unaware that they must change and engage the ideas in world but rather that they desire not too. That desire has led to them throwing up ramshackle defenses of and empty arguments to distract them from the true issue at hand.
Any human encountering the idea of Christianity must then for the sake of discovering truth engage it. As Lewis writes "Here is a door, behind which, according to some people the secret of the universe is waiting for you. Either that's true or it isn't. and if it isn't then what the door really conceals is simply the greatest fraud, the most colossal sell on record. Isn't the job of every man to try to find out which and then devote his full energies either to serving this tremendous secret or to exposing and destroying this gigantic humbug?" To be a man is question and search for truth. Anyone who encounters such a claim whether Christianity or other and does not proceed to search for the truth is more rabbit than man.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
To Make a Good Man do Bad Things
We all know what an inner ring is, we've all experienced the phenomena of them, whether or not we call them by that name. Cliques, cells, gangs, groups, committees, whatever you want to call them, chances are that we have all both been a part of some inner rings and excluded from others. These inner rings exist in every society, anywhere in the world in any class and culture (which coincidentally can themselves be inner rings). As Lewis says, "It is certainly unavoidable." To go even further Lewis says, "It is necessary: and perhaps it is not a necessary evil." If it is not evil then why does forming clicks have such a negative connotation, even when the exclusion is unintentional. Lewis goes onto explain that "A thing may be morally neutral and yet the desire for that thing may be dangerous." These groups, these inner rings are one such thing.
Thus we see that it is the desire for the inner ring that is sinful. It is that need to be accepted that we feel that is wrong, not the acceptance itself. Lewis gives examples of how this desire for the inner ring can lead to many acts that are both harmful and sinful. He points out that "when promiscuity is the fashion, the chaste are outsiders." And wonders "whether, in ages of promiscuity many a virginity has no been lost less in obedience to Venus than in obedience to the lure of the caucus." Furthermore he points out that "the number of people who first smoked or first got drunk for a similar reason is probably very large." Indeed it appears that this desire for the inner ring can pierce all other aspects of life and make things that would previously have had absolutely no appeal at all seem all of a sudden absolutely necessary to obtain. Lewis puts it well when he says, "Of all the passions, the passion for the Inner Ring is most skillful in making a man who is not yet a very bad man do very bad things."
I would like to recount a time where this last quote was illustrated in my own life. The story requires a little background so please bear with me. I went to a small missionary boarding school in Pakistan for most of my life. It was to begin with K-12 and later 4-12 but at the time that I was in 5th grade the school split, for reasons I won't go into here, with the high school and jr. high moving to Thailand while the elementary remained in Pakistan. After two years separate they rejoined when I was in seventh grade. When the school rejoined there were then two groups of people especially in my age group. There were those who had gone to Thailand, and those who had remained in Pakistan. These groups were especially pronounced in the class above me, where about half had moved to Thailand and the other half stayed in Pakistan. Now that you have that background I can proceed with the story.
When I was in sixth grade I became good friends with a guy who was a year younger than me. For anonymity I'll call him Enrique (this doesn't imply he's Hispanic, I just decided I didn't want to use any of the typical generic pseudonyms). We became really close friends, almost like brothers at that point. The next year when the school came back together his family was on furlough and I moved up into to seventh grade and began to make friends with some of the guys who came back from Thailand. They were mostly a year older than I was but I had known many of them before the school split. Looking back I can see very clearly that they were an Inner Ring that I was trying to gain access to, but at the time I didn't think much of it.
The next year came around and my friend Enrique returned from furlough and started jr. high. At that point in hind sight I would say I was on the borderline of the Inner Ring of the group from Thailand. At first I was extremely happy and excited that Enrique was back and thought we would resume our friendship where it left off. However, it soon became apparent that my friends from Thailand of the Inner Ring I desired to be a part of were not so predisposed to accepting Enrique as a friend. In fact they treated him rather horribly (I am not saying this to imply that those people were bad people, they to were suffering from the desire to maintain the Inner Ring I believe, and many of them are still among my best friends and have become extremely Godly men) teasing him and excluding him in the mean ways that only jr. high kids can. It is one of my greatest shames that I just watched them and did nothing about it. To this day I regret not having valued my friendship with him much more highly than the virtue of being inside the Inner Ring and wonder at how different things could have been between us had I done the right thing and taken his side.
As it was I spent several months avoiding him before he confronted me and asked what had happened. I talked to told him, I am ashamed to say, that I now had more friends than before and that I could not spend time with him as before. He took it amazingly well, and it is a testimony to his resilience that he formed other friendships that quickly became quite deep and meaningful. The two of us grew apart for a year before my other friends grew up a little and realized that Enrique was in fact a great guy, and only then did I approach him and apologize. I was cowardly but sincere and he was kind enough to accept my apology. We have now become close friends but not in the way that we were that first year. I forfeited that privilege through my foolish desires for acceptance.
Just last summer I had the chance to see Enrique again and we talked about it and he assured me that he had entirely forgiven me. I responded by telling him that I knew but that I still regretted it and the loss of all that might have been. The desire for the Inner Ring, even though brief and fleeting can have such lasting consequences. Even though it seems, more so than any desire, to offer relationships and friendships that are meaningful, it lies and in fact destroys those which mean the most. To make a good man do bad things offer him a chance to enter the Inner Ring he desires to enter.
Thus we see that it is the desire for the inner ring that is sinful. It is that need to be accepted that we feel that is wrong, not the acceptance itself. Lewis gives examples of how this desire for the inner ring can lead to many acts that are both harmful and sinful. He points out that "when promiscuity is the fashion, the chaste are outsiders." And wonders "whether, in ages of promiscuity many a virginity has no been lost less in obedience to Venus than in obedience to the lure of the caucus." Furthermore he points out that "the number of people who first smoked or first got drunk for a similar reason is probably very large." Indeed it appears that this desire for the inner ring can pierce all other aspects of life and make things that would previously have had absolutely no appeal at all seem all of a sudden absolutely necessary to obtain. Lewis puts it well when he says, "Of all the passions, the passion for the Inner Ring is most skillful in making a man who is not yet a very bad man do very bad things."
I would like to recount a time where this last quote was illustrated in my own life. The story requires a little background so please bear with me. I went to a small missionary boarding school in Pakistan for most of my life. It was to begin with K-12 and later 4-12 but at the time that I was in 5th grade the school split, for reasons I won't go into here, with the high school and jr. high moving to Thailand while the elementary remained in Pakistan. After two years separate they rejoined when I was in seventh grade. When the school rejoined there were then two groups of people especially in my age group. There were those who had gone to Thailand, and those who had remained in Pakistan. These groups were especially pronounced in the class above me, where about half had moved to Thailand and the other half stayed in Pakistan. Now that you have that background I can proceed with the story.
When I was in sixth grade I became good friends with a guy who was a year younger than me. For anonymity I'll call him Enrique (this doesn't imply he's Hispanic, I just decided I didn't want to use any of the typical generic pseudonyms). We became really close friends, almost like brothers at that point. The next year when the school came back together his family was on furlough and I moved up into to seventh grade and began to make friends with some of the guys who came back from Thailand. They were mostly a year older than I was but I had known many of them before the school split. Looking back I can see very clearly that they were an Inner Ring that I was trying to gain access to, but at the time I didn't think much of it.
The next year came around and my friend Enrique returned from furlough and started jr. high. At that point in hind sight I would say I was on the borderline of the Inner Ring of the group from Thailand. At first I was extremely happy and excited that Enrique was back and thought we would resume our friendship where it left off. However, it soon became apparent that my friends from Thailand of the Inner Ring I desired to be a part of were not so predisposed to accepting Enrique as a friend. In fact they treated him rather horribly (I am not saying this to imply that those people were bad people, they to were suffering from the desire to maintain the Inner Ring I believe, and many of them are still among my best friends and have become extremely Godly men) teasing him and excluding him in the mean ways that only jr. high kids can. It is one of my greatest shames that I just watched them and did nothing about it. To this day I regret not having valued my friendship with him much more highly than the virtue of being inside the Inner Ring and wonder at how different things could have been between us had I done the right thing and taken his side.
As it was I spent several months avoiding him before he confronted me and asked what had happened. I talked to told him, I am ashamed to say, that I now had more friends than before and that I could not spend time with him as before. He took it amazingly well, and it is a testimony to his resilience that he formed other friendships that quickly became quite deep and meaningful. The two of us grew apart for a year before my other friends grew up a little and realized that Enrique was in fact a great guy, and only then did I approach him and apologize. I was cowardly but sincere and he was kind enough to accept my apology. We have now become close friends but not in the way that we were that first year. I forfeited that privilege through my foolish desires for acceptance.
Just last summer I had the chance to see Enrique again and we talked about it and he assured me that he had entirely forgiven me. I responded by telling him that I knew but that I still regretted it and the loss of all that might have been. The desire for the Inner Ring, even though brief and fleeting can have such lasting consequences. Even though it seems, more so than any desire, to offer relationships and friendships that are meaningful, it lies and in fact destroys those which mean the most. To make a good man do bad things offer him a chance to enter the Inner Ring he desires to enter.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Eros: Diving In
First of all let me say that I am by no stretch of the imagination an expert on the matter of Eros, or as C.S. Lewis defines it "that state which we call 'being in love'." I have very little if any experience with it at all and many of my ideas on it are still in the formative stage being shaped by experiences that broaden my understanding. What I do have is a desire for Eros, a desire that is part of every human being. That desire that begins before we have even tasted it is one of those things that makes it seem so divine, as it is similar to our deepest longing for God, we long for him well before we have any experience of intimacy with him.
One of the things that I appreciated about Lewis examination of Eros was his statement that "We must not be totally serious about Venus." By Venus he is referring to sexuality, especially as a part of Eros. I think this can be extended to Eros in its entirety. While both sex and love are both glorious things that should not be treated frivolously that does not mean that they must be treated with utter solemnity. There needs to be a merriment and laughter mixed in. Perhaps we can learn a little bit from the young boy with a crush who teases that girl without end. Now we cannot take it to the same extreme as the young boy who will not admit his feelings and who may in fact hurt the girl badly, but both love and shared sexuality must be able to endure some teasing. In any romantic relationship, I feel that the couple needs to be able to laugh at each other as well as with each other, especially when it comes to Venus. As Lewis says "Banish play and laughter from the bed of love and you may let in a false goddess." That is you let in the idea that it should always satisfy and that it can offer more than it in reality can.
That seriousness can go so far as to create an idol of Eros itself, and Lewis talks of that. In a sense it becomes an idol because we take Eros at his word when he says that he is infinite and unchanging. Lewis says "To be in love is both to intend and promise fidelity." At the same time however Lewis points out that "all the time the grim joke is that this Eros whose voice seems to speak from the eternal realm is not himself necessarily even permanent. He is notoriously the most mortal of our loves." Eros is in fact fleeting and therefore we must not take it too seriously but instead we must use it as motivation to develop our ability to actively love. Lewis in his radio broadcast on Eros spoke of it as diving into a pool. Diving gets you into the pool but once in it you can't continue to dive you have to start to swim.
One of the things that I appreciated about Lewis examination of Eros was his statement that "We must not be totally serious about Venus." By Venus he is referring to sexuality, especially as a part of Eros. I think this can be extended to Eros in its entirety. While both sex and love are both glorious things that should not be treated frivolously that does not mean that they must be treated with utter solemnity. There needs to be a merriment and laughter mixed in. Perhaps we can learn a little bit from the young boy with a crush who teases that girl without end. Now we cannot take it to the same extreme as the young boy who will not admit his feelings and who may in fact hurt the girl badly, but both love and shared sexuality must be able to endure some teasing. In any romantic relationship, I feel that the couple needs to be able to laugh at each other as well as with each other, especially when it comes to Venus. As Lewis says "Banish play and laughter from the bed of love and you may let in a false goddess." That is you let in the idea that it should always satisfy and that it can offer more than it in reality can.
That seriousness can go so far as to create an idol of Eros itself, and Lewis talks of that. In a sense it becomes an idol because we take Eros at his word when he says that he is infinite and unchanging. Lewis says "To be in love is both to intend and promise fidelity." At the same time however Lewis points out that "all the time the grim joke is that this Eros whose voice seems to speak from the eternal realm is not himself necessarily even permanent. He is notoriously the most mortal of our loves." Eros is in fact fleeting and therefore we must not take it too seriously but instead we must use it as motivation to develop our ability to actively love. Lewis in his radio broadcast on Eros spoke of it as diving into a pool. Diving gets you into the pool but once in it you can't continue to dive you have to start to swim.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)