"Even in the life of the affections, much more in the Body of Christ, we step outside that world which says "I am as good as you." It is like turning from a march to a dance. It is like taking off our clothes. We become, as Chesterton said, taller when we bow, we become lowlier when we instruct... In this way then the Christian life defends the single personality from the collective, not be isolating him but by giving him the status of an organ in the mystical Body... The reason we recoil from this is that we have in our day started by getting the whole picture upside down. Starting with the doctrine that every individuality is "of infinite value," we then picture God as a kind of employment committee whose business it is to find suitable careers for souls, square holes for square pegs. In fact, however, the value of the individual does not lie in him. He is capable of receiving value. He receives it by union with Christ."
- C. S. Lewis, "Membership"
Here we move towards the end of Lewis's address on membership. Lewis has taken us through some interesting thoughts that at time run counter to what many Christians hear from their pulpits. In summary the three big ideas that Lewis applies throughout this address are:
1. The idea of a "solitary Christian" is foreign to what Scripture teaches us. If I am a believer and I live near other believers I should be in fellowship with them as we are all part of the body of Christ. Sadly, we have let our baser natures split us over non-crucial areas of doctrine. Rather than taking a view of "in essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity", we now make every word in a denomination's doctrinal statement a reason to go to war. Somethings are essential, others not so much so lets stop treating them as such.
2. A Christian identity is a public identity. Related to the first idea, we are called to public worship with one another. Extending this a bit, our Christian identity is not something that should be excised from everything else we do in life.
3. The Body of Christ is not a collective. We are not simply copies of each other but unique with our own special talents that we bring to the Body. Forced uniformity is something else foreign to Scripture. While certain ideas of equality exist for the good of the secular world, inequality is not something to be reviled but embraced. We are not the same. We do not have the same gifts. We cannot all do the same thing. We are all fallen and thus in the eyes of God have an equal need of salvation but that is not the same as saying we are all equal. We are all equal in that we are all in the same class, we have all fallen short of God's glory. We are also all equal in that the message of salvation has equal effect, accepting it brings us into full inheritance. It is enough for each, it is sufficient for all.
Wednesday, March 15, 2017
Monday, March 13, 2017
Twelveth Post - Lent 2017 with C. S. Lewis (Membership)
"And now I must say something that may appear to you a paradox. You have often heard that though in the world we hold different stations, yet we are all equal in the sight of God. There are, of course, senses in which this is true. God is no accepter of persons; His love for us is not measured by our social rank or our intellectual talents. But I believe there is a sense in which this maxim is the reverse of the truth. I am going to venture to say that artificial equality is necessary in the life of the State, but that in the Church we strip off this disguise, we recover our real inequalities, and are thereby refreshed and quickened... Equality is for me in the same position as clothes. It is a result of the Fall and the remedy for it. Any attempt to retrace the steps by which we have arrived at egalitarianism and to reintroduce the old authorities on the political level is for me as foolish as it would be to take off our clothes. The Nazi and the nudist make the same mistake. But it is the naked body, still there beneath the clothes of each one of us, which really lives. It is the hierarchical world, still alive and (very properly) hidden behind a facade of equal citizenship, which is our real concern."
- C. S. Lewis, "Membership"
Rather long copy of C. S. Lewis's text and yet still too short because the thought are big and need deeper analysis than what I will do here. Lewis continues with his theme of membership in the Body verses an element in the collective. At this point we dive into the idea of "equality" and Lewis right off the bat takes a stand that is often contrary to what we have been lead to think about the value of that concept. Now Lewis goes beyond the way I clumsily swapped "egalitarian" with "equality" and if you want to deep dive into the concepts of egalitarianism you can start here . But for my current discourse I'll stick with the more vulgar concept of "equality".
Lewis reminds me of the necessity of good government that views all people as equal in the eyes of government and the law, but this necessity is not because of inherent worth but rather because of the nature of fallen mankind. Treating people as equal in the eyes of the State (in theory) puts checks on the more baser motives of certain people and serves to protect the least among us. But Lewis tells me that while this works here this doesn't carry over to the eternal realm and that it is a mistake to bring those same ideas into our own heavenly citizenship.
Over and over again Scripture does talk about inequality. For example, in 1 Corinthians 12 we get a vivid teaching on how members in the Body are different, serve different but important functions with different gifts. But notice what Paul writes in verse 31: "Now eagerly desire the greater gifts". So not all gifts are the same, some are greater and to be more desired. In 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 Paul talks about our works being judged and many not found worthy. So not everything is absolutely equal in the eyes of God. What we do do know that it in the eyes of God all people are equal in status, that we all have fallen short of God's glory (Romans 3:23-24), that no works of our own merit Salvation (Titus 3:5) and that God who is Love loves the world, not because of us but because of who God is (John 3:16).
- C. S. Lewis, "Membership"
Rather long copy of C. S. Lewis's text and yet still too short because the thought are big and need deeper analysis than what I will do here. Lewis continues with his theme of membership in the Body verses an element in the collective. At this point we dive into the idea of "equality" and Lewis right off the bat takes a stand that is often contrary to what we have been lead to think about the value of that concept. Now Lewis goes beyond the way I clumsily swapped "egalitarian" with "equality" and if you want to deep dive into the concepts of egalitarianism you can start here . But for my current discourse I'll stick with the more vulgar concept of "equality".
Lewis reminds me of the necessity of good government that views all people as equal in the eyes of government and the law, but this necessity is not because of inherent worth but rather because of the nature of fallen mankind. Treating people as equal in the eyes of the State (in theory) puts checks on the more baser motives of certain people and serves to protect the least among us. But Lewis tells me that while this works here this doesn't carry over to the eternal realm and that it is a mistake to bring those same ideas into our own heavenly citizenship.
Over and over again Scripture does talk about inequality. For example, in 1 Corinthians 12 we get a vivid teaching on how members in the Body are different, serve different but important functions with different gifts. But notice what Paul writes in verse 31: "Now eagerly desire the greater gifts". So not all gifts are the same, some are greater and to be more desired. In 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 Paul talks about our works being judged and many not found worthy. So not everything is absolutely equal in the eyes of God. What we do do know that it in the eyes of God all people are equal in status, that we all have fallen short of God's glory (Romans 3:23-24), that no works of our own merit Salvation (Titus 3:5) and that God who is Love loves the world, not because of us but because of who God is (John 3:16).
Sunday, March 12, 2017
Eleventh Post - Lent 2017 with C. S. Lewis (Membership)
"A dim perception of the richness inherent in this kind of unity is one reason why we enjoy a book like The Wind in the Willows; a trio such as Rat, Mole, and Badger symbolizes the extreme differentiation of persons in harmonious union, which we know intuitively to be our true refuge both from solitude and from the collective. The affection between such oddly matched couples as Dick Swiveller and the Marchioness or Mr. Pickwick and Sam Weller pleases in the same way. That is why the modern notion that children should call their parents by their Christian names is so perverse. For this is an effort to ignore the difference in kind which makes for real organic unity... They are trying to drag the featureless repetitions of the collective into the fuller and more concrete world of the family."
- C. S. Lewis, "Membership"
In this current section Lewis reminds me of the difference between a collective and membership within the Body of Christ. Rather than quote the more spiritual sections I decided to go with one of his much more concrete examples of that difference.
I'm not sure who has read The Wind in the Willows but I highly recommend it. If you want to know how diversity works it's in there. Rat, Mole, and Badger, all different, become friends. In the stories they meet each other, they teach each other, they spend time together, they grow closer, they help each other and all three become richer because of their interactions. The other two literary references are to Dicken's The Old Curiosity Shop and his The Pickwick Papers (see, those literature classes do pay off) and are both examples of completely different people entering into fellowship of some type one with another.
In Scripture we are not called to come together like a roll of quarters, each nearly identical and completely interchangeable. I found the comment about children calling their parents by their first name interesting. I had always found it a bit distasteful because it shows disrespect. Lewis takes it deeper as another way contemporary society is erasing those natural differences that occur within the family. In Lewis's words what makes the Body rich is "organic unity", all of us coming together with our differences to make up the whole. If I take a quarter from a roll, not much has changed from the collective. If Rat or Mole or Badger disappeared that friendship is radically altered. If a body loses one of its parts it is forever changed.
- C. S. Lewis, "Membership"
In this current section Lewis reminds me of the difference between a collective and membership within the Body of Christ. Rather than quote the more spiritual sections I decided to go with one of his much more concrete examples of that difference.
I'm not sure who has read The Wind in the Willows but I highly recommend it. If you want to know how diversity works it's in there. Rat, Mole, and Badger, all different, become friends. In the stories they meet each other, they teach each other, they spend time together, they grow closer, they help each other and all three become richer because of their interactions. The other two literary references are to Dicken's The Old Curiosity Shop and his The Pickwick Papers (see, those literature classes do pay off) and are both examples of completely different people entering into fellowship of some type one with another.
In Scripture we are not called to come together like a roll of quarters, each nearly identical and completely interchangeable. I found the comment about children calling their parents by their first name interesting. I had always found it a bit distasteful because it shows disrespect. Lewis takes it deeper as another way contemporary society is erasing those natural differences that occur within the family. In Lewis's words what makes the Body rich is "organic unity", all of us coming together with our differences to make up the whole. If I take a quarter from a roll, not much has changed from the collective. If Rat or Mole or Badger disappeared that friendship is radically altered. If a body loses one of its parts it is forever changed.
Saturday, March 11, 2017
Tenth Post - Lent 2017 with C. S. Lewis (Membership)
"The Christian is called not individualism but to membership in the mystical body. A consideration of the differences between the secular collective and the mystical body is therefore a first stop to understanding how Christianity without being individualistic can yet counteract collectivism.
At the outset we are hampered by a difficulty of language. The very word membership is of Christian origin, but it has been taken over by the world and emptied of all meaning. In any book on logic you mean see the expression "members of a class." it mu be most emphatically stated the the items or particulars included in a homogeneous class almost the reverse of what St. Paul meant by members. By members he meant what we should call organs, things essentially different from, and complementary to, one another... I am afraid that when we describe a man as "a member of the Church" we usually mean nothing Pauline; we mean he is a unit - that he is one more specimen of some kind of things as X and Y and Z."
- C. S. Lewis, "Membership"
In this part of the address Lewis continues with the idea that I am not called to be a solitary Christian and not to have the idea that Christianity equates to strong individualism (a sad symptom in a lot of contemporary evangelical thought that has splashed over into conservative politics and I say this as someone still broadly evangelical and politically conservative). Instead I am reminded that I am part of something, the Body of Christ.
The book I have does not translate the Greek word that Lewis is referring to but I think it is "melos". It is used in passages such as Ephesians 5:28 - 30:
" In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church for we are members [melos] of his body."
Similar usage is found in 1 Corinthians 6:15.
Melos means a part or member of a whole or it can mean a limb of the human body. For Lewis (and for Paul) I am a part of the Body of Christ. I have my own identity, my own personality, my own function. I am not just an interchangeable cog within some collective machine, not just a "unit" of something in a bigger collection. I am not just another name on some church's "membership" book. I have a uniqueness in who I am within the larger Body, a part of the whole of the Body and not just another "thing" that is numerically equivalent to a bunch of other things because of belonging to some bounded set. As a member [melos], my removal disrupts the Body. This is different than the commonly held idea of membership where my removal simply reduces the number in the collection. In short, I matter. I add to the whole. I am missed if I am gone.
The idea of belonging to a larger body is one of the reasons I associated with the ECUSA (well, that and "The Vicar of Dibley" but that is a story for another day). It was here that I felt a big part of my Christian identity was being called out. I was challenged to "do good" with them in the world. Packing lots of Scripture in one's memory is not the end all of the Christian life and most of the places I had attended placed utmost importance to two things: memorizing Scripture and personal evangelism. Nothing wrong with that, but both of those things are solitary activities and over the years I have come to an understanding that Christianity is NOT a solitary activity. If it was, why would we be told that we are "salt and light" to the world and why would we be called together to support one another? There had to be something more. This Christian thing had to be bigger than me and what I do. In the ECUSA I do see and hear that there is more, I see a body that is active in the community and in the world to share God's love through trying to do what is good. Is it perfect? Oh no, far from it but for me it was a step in what I think was the right direction.
At the outset we are hampered by a difficulty of language. The very word membership is of Christian origin, but it has been taken over by the world and emptied of all meaning. In any book on logic you mean see the expression "members of a class." it mu be most emphatically stated the the items or particulars included in a homogeneous class almost the reverse of what St. Paul meant by members. By members he meant what we should call organs, things essentially different from, and complementary to, one another... I am afraid that when we describe a man as "a member of the Church" we usually mean nothing Pauline; we mean he is a unit - that he is one more specimen of some kind of things as X and Y and Z."
- C. S. Lewis, "Membership"
In this part of the address Lewis continues with the idea that I am not called to be a solitary Christian and not to have the idea that Christianity equates to strong individualism (a sad symptom in a lot of contemporary evangelical thought that has splashed over into conservative politics and I say this as someone still broadly evangelical and politically conservative). Instead I am reminded that I am part of something, the Body of Christ.
The book I have does not translate the Greek word that Lewis is referring to but I think it is "melos". It is used in passages such as Ephesians 5:28 - 30:
" In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church for we are members [melos] of his body."
Similar usage is found in 1 Corinthians 6:15.
Melos means a part or member of a whole or it can mean a limb of the human body. For Lewis (and for Paul) I am a part of the Body of Christ. I have my own identity, my own personality, my own function. I am not just an interchangeable cog within some collective machine, not just a "unit" of something in a bigger collection. I am not just another name on some church's "membership" book. I have a uniqueness in who I am within the larger Body, a part of the whole of the Body and not just another "thing" that is numerically equivalent to a bunch of other things because of belonging to some bounded set. As a member [melos], my removal disrupts the Body. This is different than the commonly held idea of membership where my removal simply reduces the number in the collection. In short, I matter. I add to the whole. I am missed if I am gone.
The idea of belonging to a larger body is one of the reasons I associated with the ECUSA (well, that and "The Vicar of Dibley" but that is a story for another day). It was here that I felt a big part of my Christian identity was being called out. I was challenged to "do good" with them in the world. Packing lots of Scripture in one's memory is not the end all of the Christian life and most of the places I had attended placed utmost importance to two things: memorizing Scripture and personal evangelism. Nothing wrong with that, but both of those things are solitary activities and over the years I have come to an understanding that Christianity is NOT a solitary activity. If it was, why would we be told that we are "salt and light" to the world and why would we be called together to support one another? There had to be something more. This Christian thing had to be bigger than me and what I do. In the ECUSA I do see and hear that there is more, I see a body that is active in the community and in the world to share God's love through trying to do what is good. Is it perfect? Oh no, far from it but for me it was a step in what I think was the right direction.
Friday, March 10, 2017
Ninth Post - Lent 2017 with C. S. Lewis (Membership)
"No Christian and, indeed, no historian could accept the epigram which defines religion as "what a man does with his solitude." It was the Wesleys, I think, who said that the New Testament knows nothing of solitary religion. We are forbidden to neglect the assembling of ourselves together. Christianity is already institutional in the earliest of its documents. The Church is the Bride of Christ. We are members of one another.
In our own age the idea that religion belongs to our private life - that it is, in fact, an occupation for the individual's hour of leisure - is at once paradoxical, dangerous, and natural"
- C. S. Lewis, "Membership"
Having finished Lewis's address "The Weight of Glory" I now turn to another of his addresses in the book (just for the record the volume I am using is "The Weight of Glory: And Other Addresses" which you can find here). Here Lewis takes me into the realm of being a public Christian.
I'm not going to go into Lewis' second paragraph directly, if you want to know his full argument you can grab a copy of the book from the link provided or you can find it online. Instead I am going to just provide my thoughts on the idea of one's religious as a private affair. Honestly, I have never understood this. For the Christian that idea is no where found in the New Testament. Hebrews 10:24, 25 is very clear, we are to gather together to encourage one another ever onward in showing love and doing good deeds. At a minimum our religion is public in that we are supposed to gather together publicly. Nowhere are we told to go off into our secret space to worship God. After all, if you can't bother to gather together to worship God with God's children, how are you ever going to be able to spend eternity with them?!
But that one is pretty easy. Most people have absolutely no problem with people being public Christians a couple of hours on Sunday (or Saturday depending on your beliefs). But what about the rest of the week? Here is where I find being a solitary Christian completely incomprehensible and I will expand my thoughts to pretty much any religion. It boils down to this... if your religion isn't part of your life, impacting the way you think and the way you act, what good is it? Writing these works I am immediately drawn to James 2:14 - 20 where I am told that belief isn't enough to be well-rounded, that if it doesn't influence our actions and demonstrate that our beliefs point to a better way of life then it is ineffective (or as the KJV puts it, "dead"). But here is where it gets touchy. If we are going to act in the public sphere as a Christian we damned better be sure we know what we do is aligned with what it means to be a Christian. Unfortunately people cloak their own prejudices with the veneer of a "higher purpose" to try to make it easier to swallow. They often forget passages like Ephesians 4:29:
" Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen."
Even stronger is Psalms 17:27 - 28:
In our own age the idea that religion belongs to our private life - that it is, in fact, an occupation for the individual's hour of leisure - is at once paradoxical, dangerous, and natural"
- C. S. Lewis, "Membership"
Having finished Lewis's address "The Weight of Glory" I now turn to another of his addresses in the book (just for the record the volume I am using is "The Weight of Glory: And Other Addresses" which you can find here). Here Lewis takes me into the realm of being a public Christian.
I'm not going to go into Lewis' second paragraph directly, if you want to know his full argument you can grab a copy of the book from the link provided or you can find it online. Instead I am going to just provide my thoughts on the idea of one's religious as a private affair. Honestly, I have never understood this. For the Christian that idea is no where found in the New Testament. Hebrews 10:24, 25 is very clear, we are to gather together to encourage one another ever onward in showing love and doing good deeds. At a minimum our religion is public in that we are supposed to gather together publicly. Nowhere are we told to go off into our secret space to worship God. After all, if you can't bother to gather together to worship God with God's children, how are you ever going to be able to spend eternity with them?!
But that one is pretty easy. Most people have absolutely no problem with people being public Christians a couple of hours on Sunday (or Saturday depending on your beliefs). But what about the rest of the week? Here is where I find being a solitary Christian completely incomprehensible and I will expand my thoughts to pretty much any religion. It boils down to this... if your religion isn't part of your life, impacting the way you think and the way you act, what good is it? Writing these works I am immediately drawn to James 2:14 - 20 where I am told that belief isn't enough to be well-rounded, that if it doesn't influence our actions and demonstrate that our beliefs point to a better way of life then it is ineffective (or as the KJV puts it, "dead"). But here is where it gets touchy. If we are going to act in the public sphere as a Christian we damned better be sure we know what we do is aligned with what it means to be a Christian. Unfortunately people cloak their own prejudices with the veneer of a "higher purpose" to try to make it easier to swallow. They often forget passages like Ephesians 4:29:
" Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen."
Even stronger is Psalms 17:27 - 28:
" The one who has knowledge uses words with restraint, and whoever has understanding is even-tempered. Even fools are thought wise if they keep silent,and discerning if they hold their tongues."
I am a Christian 24 hours a day, even days a week. I am a Christian at church, at home, at work, when with friends and with enemies. I cannot be a solitary practitioner nor can I be a private practitioner, but I can be a thoughtful practitioner of the faith I follow... well, in the faith that draws me closer to the One who loves with with an endless love. How can I do anything less?
Thursday, March 09, 2017
Eighth Post - Lent 2017: C. S. Lewis (The Weight of Glory)
"There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations - these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit - immortal horrors or everlasting splendours. This does not mean we are to be perpetually solemn. We must play. But our merriment must be of that kind (and it is, in fact, the merriest kind) which exists between people who have, from the outset, taken each other seriously - no flippancy, no superiority, no presumption. And our charity must be a real and costly love, with deep feeling for the sins in spite of which we love the sinner - no mere tolerance, or indulgence which parodies love as flippancy parodies merriment. Next to the Blessed Sacrament itself, you neighbor is the holiest object presented to your senses. If he is your Christian neighbor, he is holy in almost the same way, for in him also Christ vere latitat - the glorifier and the glorified, Glory Himself, is truly hidden."
- C. S. Lewis, "The Weight of Glory"
Here at the end of his address Lewis continues to remind me of the eternal nature of both God and myself. I still struggle with this idea though I do not deny it, it is just I am not used to giving eternity any truly serious thought, to try to understand what it would really mean. Here Lewis wants to shake me and say "Are you listening? Do you understand what it means to be human? Do you know who and what you are because of Him?"
The contemporary age of arrogance makes me respond initially (as I think the vast majority of people would) "Yeah, yeah I do" but when I pause and reflect on how I see people, myself included, interact with one another I have to blush, avert my eyes and say "I don't". Seriously, think of this:
"But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit"
It is immortals whom we cuss out on Facebook because they believe politically differently from us.
It is immortals whom we call ugly, bums, worthless, sometimes trash.
It is immortals from whom we look away in time of need.
It is immortals of whom we lash out against merely because they are a different race, a different sexual orientation, a different nationality, a different religions from us.
I used to think of this in terms of verses like Hebrews 13:2 where we are told to show hospitality to strangers because some who have done so have unknowingly entertained angels. But here Lewis says I need to do that simply because of who we are. The professor points out that I need to take people seriously, that my charity must be real, not something flippant, not something I should do when I feel like it. Within each person is the imago dei, the image of God. Whether they know it or not, I do and I need to act accordingly.
Some will accuse me of being too naive, that I don't understand reality. Maybe, but I don't think so. I think it is a matter of taking what God has told us seriously. Rather than saying just "Amen, I believe" I need to say (and so should you if you say you are Christian) "Amen, I believe, and so this is how I will live".
- C. S. Lewis, "The Weight of Glory"
Here at the end of his address Lewis continues to remind me of the eternal nature of both God and myself. I still struggle with this idea though I do not deny it, it is just I am not used to giving eternity any truly serious thought, to try to understand what it would really mean. Here Lewis wants to shake me and say "Are you listening? Do you understand what it means to be human? Do you know who and what you are because of Him?"
The contemporary age of arrogance makes me respond initially (as I think the vast majority of people would) "Yeah, yeah I do" but when I pause and reflect on how I see people, myself included, interact with one another I have to blush, avert my eyes and say "I don't". Seriously, think of this:
"But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit"
It is immortals whom we cuss out on Facebook because they believe politically differently from us.
It is immortals whom we call ugly, bums, worthless, sometimes trash.
It is immortals from whom we look away in time of need.
It is immortals of whom we lash out against merely because they are a different race, a different sexual orientation, a different nationality, a different religions from us.
I used to think of this in terms of verses like Hebrews 13:2 where we are told to show hospitality to strangers because some who have done so have unknowingly entertained angels. But here Lewis says I need to do that simply because of who we are. The professor points out that I need to take people seriously, that my charity must be real, not something flippant, not something I should do when I feel like it. Within each person is the imago dei, the image of God. Whether they know it or not, I do and I need to act accordingly.
Some will accuse me of being too naive, that I don't understand reality. Maybe, but I don't think so. I think it is a matter of taking what God has told us seriously. Rather than saying just "Amen, I believe" I need to say (and so should you if you say you are Christian) "Amen, I believe, and so this is how I will live".
Wednesday, March 08, 2017
Seventh Post - Lent 2017 with C. S. Lewis (The Weight of Glory)
"And this brings me to the other sense of glory - glory as brightness, splendor, luminosity. We are to shine as the sun, we are to be given the Morning Star... We do not merely want 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... For you must not think that I am putting forth any heathen fancy of being absorbed into Nature. Nature is mortal; we shall outlive her. When all the suns and nebulae have passed away, each one of you will still be alive. Nature is only the image, the symbol; but it is the symbol Scripture invites me to use."
- C. S. Lewis, "The Weight of Glory"
"Then the righteous shall shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father (Matthew 13:43).
"To the one who is victorious and does my will to the end...I will also give that one the morning star." (Revelation 2:26 - 28).
Last time we looked at glory as fame or acclaim which for the Christian is being know and recognized by God as a good and faithful servant. In today's section Lewis takes us into the other branch of his definition. We shall shine! We will be beautiful! But it doesn't say we will be sun, that we will simply absorbed into nature or that we are made of "star stuff". Oh no, for the Christian it is far, far more than that. Our scientists have predicted "sun death", that point in time when our blazing sun will finally give its final flicker and cease to the a source of live giving light to this planet. And Lewis reminds us that when that happens, we will still be. We have been promised to be with our eternal God forever.
But what is it that makes us shine like the sun?
"Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit." - II Corinthians 3:17 - 18
Here the word "contemplate" can be translated "reflect" and I start to see the source of my shining. It's not from within me, it's outside of me. I don't shine because of my own righteous works, I shine because of God, I reflect the source of eternal light. As I move closer and closer to Christ the one who saved me (most of the time with the speed of glacial growth), the more I reflect of His shining light to the world (Matthew 5:13-16). Once I leave the bounds of this world and finally lay claim the promise given to be with Him I finally have the opportunity to be fully transformed and my reflective ability which now is on a good day like a small, dust covered mirror will be in full display. Perfect reflection of the perfect Light.
- C. S. Lewis, "The Weight of Glory"
"Then the righteous shall shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father (Matthew 13:43).
"To the one who is victorious and does my will to the end...I will also give that one the morning star." (Revelation 2:26 - 28).
Last time we looked at glory as fame or acclaim which for the Christian is being know and recognized by God as a good and faithful servant. In today's section Lewis takes us into the other branch of his definition. We shall shine! We will be beautiful! But it doesn't say we will be sun, that we will simply absorbed into nature or that we are made of "star stuff". Oh no, for the Christian it is far, far more than that. Our scientists have predicted "sun death", that point in time when our blazing sun will finally give its final flicker and cease to the a source of live giving light to this planet. And Lewis reminds us that when that happens, we will still be. We have been promised to be with our eternal God forever.
But what is it that makes us shine like the sun?
"Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit." - II Corinthians 3:17 - 18
Here the word "contemplate" can be translated "reflect" and I start to see the source of my shining. It's not from within me, it's outside of me. I don't shine because of my own righteous works, I shine because of God, I reflect the source of eternal light. As I move closer and closer to Christ the one who saved me (most of the time with the speed of glacial growth), the more I reflect of His shining light to the world (Matthew 5:13-16). Once I leave the bounds of this world and finally lay claim the promise given to be with Him I finally have the opportunity to be fully transformed and my reflective ability which now is on a good day like a small, dust covered mirror will be in full display. Perfect reflection of the perfect Light.
Tuesday, March 07, 2017
Sixth Post - Lent 2017 with C. S. Lewis (The Weight of Glory)
"St Paul promises to those who love God not, as we should expect, that they will know Him, but that they will be known by Him (1 Cor. 8:3). It is a strange promise . Does not God know all things at all times? But it is dreadfully reechoed in another passage of the New Testament. There we are warned that it may happen to anyone of us to appear at last before the face of God and hear only the appalling word, "I never knew you. Depart from Me." In some sense, as dark to the intellect as it is unendurable to the feelings, we can be both banished from the presence of Him who is present everywhere and erased from the knowledge of Him who knows all. We can be left utterly and absolutely outside - repelled, exiled, estranged, finally and unspeakably ignored."
- C. S. Lewis, "The Weight of Glory"
Lewis turns a little dark in this section of reflection on glory. Continuing with the last reading of glory as recognition and a type of fame, receiving commendation of God, he goes deeper into this idea. If we love God then we are known by God. Let's expand that section of 1 Corinthians:
"Those who think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know. But whoever loves God is known by God" - 1 Corinthians 8:2,3 NIV
Now some manuscripts report this as:
"Those who think they have knowledge do not yet know as they ought to know. But whoever loves truly knows."
So there can be a little discrepancy and in some sense the second reading fits a more literal thinking if your framework is the traditional Christian concept of God (all the omnis). But that does not negate the first reading if we stick with the idea from last time that if we love God and we continue in the service God has placed us in then we are known as "good and faithful servants".
Lewis' second line of thought though is chilling... that an omniscient, omnipresent God could say to someone "Depart from me. I never knew you." Today I am not here to debate the characteristics of God (maybe I'll do that in a later post where I brush the dust off a paper I wrote for a graduate class in the philosophy of religion and debate myself on what I thought then verses what I think now), so I am just taking what is clearly stated in Scripture. Lewis is pulling his line from Matthew 7:
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'"
- Matthew 7:21 - 23 (ESV)
I think of the list of words that Lewis uses in describing this state the most terrifying is "unspeakably ignored". Those in that state are still there, still able to speak, would be heard, but no response. It's terrible when it happens in human relationships. One of the most hurtful situations is to have someone you think of as a friend to ignore you. I cannot imagine what it would be to ignored by God.
- C. S. Lewis, "The Weight of Glory"
Lewis turns a little dark in this section of reflection on glory. Continuing with the last reading of glory as recognition and a type of fame, receiving commendation of God, he goes deeper into this idea. If we love God then we are known by God. Let's expand that section of 1 Corinthians:
"Those who think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know. But whoever loves God is known by God" - 1 Corinthians 8:2,3 NIV
Now some manuscripts report this as:
"Those who think they have knowledge do not yet know as they ought to know. But whoever loves truly knows."
So there can be a little discrepancy and in some sense the second reading fits a more literal thinking if your framework is the traditional Christian concept of God (all the omnis). But that does not negate the first reading if we stick with the idea from last time that if we love God and we continue in the service God has placed us in then we are known as "good and faithful servants".
Lewis' second line of thought though is chilling... that an omniscient, omnipresent God could say to someone "Depart from me. I never knew you." Today I am not here to debate the characteristics of God (maybe I'll do that in a later post where I brush the dust off a paper I wrote for a graduate class in the philosophy of religion and debate myself on what I thought then verses what I think now), so I am just taking what is clearly stated in Scripture. Lewis is pulling his line from Matthew 7:
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'"
- Matthew 7:21 - 23 (ESV)
I think of the list of words that Lewis uses in describing this state the most terrifying is "unspeakably ignored". Those in that state are still there, still able to speak, would be heard, but no response. It's terrible when it happens in human relationships. One of the most hurtful situations is to have someone you think of as a friend to ignore you. I cannot imagine what it would be to ignored by God.
Monday, March 06, 2017
Fifth Post - Lent 2017 with C. S. Lewis (The Weight of Glory)
"Salvation is constantly associated with palms, crowns, white robes, thrones, and splendour like the sun and stars... Glory suggests two ideas to me, of which one seems wicked and the other ridiculous. Either glory means to me fame or it means luminosity... But not fame conferred by our fellow creatures - fame with God, approval, or (I might say) "appreciation by God. And then, when I had thought it over, I saw that this view was scriptural; nothing can eliminate from the parable the divine accolade, "Well done, though good and faithful servant."
- C.S. Lewis
After discussing the five groups of promises in Scripture and why there are more promises more than one (that we would be with Christ our savior), Lewis turns to the idea of "glory". I've wrestled with this too, what does "glory" mean and does it mean that for me? It's one thing to give God glory, but what does it mean to have the promise of glory? For the longest time I was stuck in the idea that our "glory" was the promise of heaven, that we would be with Christ in glory (in heaven, wherever his presence is). But Lewis has brought up something that didn't really enter my thinking, that I would earn praise from God for finishing the race, that God could be pleased with ME. Without too much exposition look the Parable of the Bags of Gold and note that the servants who did the right thing with what their master gave them were told "well done... come share in your master's happiness!"
To hear those words from God Almighty, creator or heavens and earth, of all that is seen and unseen would be glory indeed!
Lent is a time to look at things like this. What can I do with my live that would bring me closer to God? What should I eliminate that distracts me from my path OR what could I add to make my path more straight? There is no one magic answer for everything (thank goodness, because while giving up chocolate is easy because I am on the Atkins diet, giving up meat would blow the diet out of the water!) So each of us is called to look at ourselves as God looks at us, as individuals, and ask "What can I do to get closer to You?"
- C.S. Lewis
After discussing the five groups of promises in Scripture and why there are more promises more than one (that we would be with Christ our savior), Lewis turns to the idea of "glory". I've wrestled with this too, what does "glory" mean and does it mean that for me? It's one thing to give God glory, but what does it mean to have the promise of glory? For the longest time I was stuck in the idea that our "glory" was the promise of heaven, that we would be with Christ in glory (in heaven, wherever his presence is). But Lewis has brought up something that didn't really enter my thinking, that I would earn praise from God for finishing the race, that God could be pleased with ME. Without too much exposition look the Parable of the Bags of Gold and note that the servants who did the right thing with what their master gave them were told "well done... come share in your master's happiness!"
To hear those words from God Almighty, creator or heavens and earth, of all that is seen and unseen would be glory indeed!
Lent is a time to look at things like this. What can I do with my live that would bring me closer to God? What should I eliminate that distracts me from my path OR what could I add to make my path more straight? There is no one magic answer for everything (thank goodness, because while giving up chocolate is easy because I am on the Atkins diet, giving up meat would blow the diet out of the water!) So each of us is called to look at ourselves as God looks at us, as individuals, and ask "What can I do to get closer to You?"
Sunday, March 05, 2017
Fourth Post - Lent 2017 with C.S. Lewis (The Weight of Glory)
"... because God is more than a Person, and lest we should imagine the joy of His presence too exclusively in terms of our present poor experience of personal love, with all its narrowness and strain and monotony, a dozen changing images, correcting and relieving each other, are supplied."
- C.S.Lewis, The Weight of Glory
In this section Lewis starts with list the roughly five categories of promises of scripture:
I don't disagree but will put my own little spin on it. If I think about what I know of the world around the first century, especially the early communities of believers, what would joyful experience mean to me? Maybe rather than be part of a poor, repressed people I would have "glory", I would be special. Maybe rather than being hungry it would mean that I would be fed and never worry about having to do without. Maybe rather than being powerless in my current world system this future hope would mean I have some position, some status. All because being with Christ would mean I would be LIKE Christ. Poor examples I know, but we're trying to communicate something none have experienced and attempted to tell. Oh sure there are some glimpses (the Revelation as described by John, the experience at the Mount of Transfiguration), but no one knows exactly what it means to be with Christ at the end. If I follow my own examples, I wonder what these promises would look like today? What if rather than Christ appearing in the first century Mediterranean area he first appeared in 21st century America? Where would he appear? What would be first people he would go to with his message? And following this passage from Lewis, what would the promises of God look like?
Hmmmm...
- C.S.Lewis, The Weight of Glory
In this section Lewis starts with list the roughly five categories of promises of scripture:
- We shall be with Christ
- We shall be like Christ
- We shall have "glory"
- We shall in some sense be fed or feasted or entertained
- We shall some sort of position in the universe
I don't disagree but will put my own little spin on it. If I think about what I know of the world around the first century, especially the early communities of believers, what would joyful experience mean to me? Maybe rather than be part of a poor, repressed people I would have "glory", I would be special. Maybe rather than being hungry it would mean that I would be fed and never worry about having to do without. Maybe rather than being powerless in my current world system this future hope would mean I have some position, some status. All because being with Christ would mean I would be LIKE Christ. Poor examples I know, but we're trying to communicate something none have experienced and attempted to tell. Oh sure there are some glimpses (the Revelation as described by John, the experience at the Mount of Transfiguration), but no one knows exactly what it means to be with Christ at the end. If I follow my own examples, I wonder what these promises would look like today? What if rather than Christ appearing in the first century Mediterranean area he first appeared in 21st century America? Where would he appear? What would be first people he would go to with his message? And following this passage from Lewis, what would the promises of God look like?
Hmmmm...
Saturday, March 04, 2017
Third Post - Lent 2017 with C. S. Lewis (The Weight of Glory)
"Our sacred books give us some account of the object [of our transtemporal desire]. It is, of course, a symbolic account. Heaven is, by definition, outside our experience, but all intelligible descriptions must be of things within our experience... heaven is not really full of jewelry any more than it is really the beauty of nature, or a fine piece of music. The difference is that the scriptural imagery has authority. It comes to us from writers who were closer to God than we, and it has stood the test of Christian experience down the centuries. The natural appeal of this authoritative imagery is to me, at first, very small. At first sight it chills, rather than awakens, my desire. And that is just what I ought to expect. If Christianity could tell me no more of the far-off land than my own temperament led me to surmise already, then Christianity would be no higher than myself. If it has more to give, I expect it to be less immediately attractive than "my own stuff."
- C. S. Lewis, "The Weight of Glory"
As a Christian I consider my broadly in the conservative camp. I hold the Bible in extremely high regard and that God's message given to us is something we can understand. I do not think that the Bible is all symbolism and full of hidden mystery knowledge (the more Gnostic approach that some take). For me, Lewis reminds me that not everything described is EXACTLY as it is and he makes the case that this is a good thing. If the object of heavenly desire is only what I can create in my own imagination then what I am getting from Christianity is no more than what I already have and the desire is limited only by my desire for what I already have in mind. But heaven is so much more. The writers of scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit are trying to relay information in terms we can understand. In fact, I think think it is more of something like this "Imagine a place where streets are made of gold, gates each made of a single pearl (see for example the passage in Revelation 21). Awesome right, the most precious things on Earth. Well Heaven is more than that." Here I start hearing echoes of Anselm's ontological argument for God's existence ("Now image something greater than anything else that could ever be imagined...").
The important thing is a warning against arrogance. If I believe I can think everything out then what scripture has to tell me is no more than what I can already reason out. But if I realize there are just some things that I cannot work out in my own mind, that is just something that indicates there is more out there than meets the eye. In fact, it is so fantastic that right now I can't even fully imagine what it is, so my desire to find out is inflamed even more.
- C. S. Lewis, "The Weight of Glory"
As a Christian I consider my broadly in the conservative camp. I hold the Bible in extremely high regard and that God's message given to us is something we can understand. I do not think that the Bible is all symbolism and full of hidden mystery knowledge (the more Gnostic approach that some take). For me, Lewis reminds me that not everything described is EXACTLY as it is and he makes the case that this is a good thing. If the object of heavenly desire is only what I can create in my own imagination then what I am getting from Christianity is no more than what I already have and the desire is limited only by my desire for what I already have in mind. But heaven is so much more. The writers of scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit are trying to relay information in terms we can understand. In fact, I think think it is more of something like this "Imagine a place where streets are made of gold, gates each made of a single pearl (see for example the passage in Revelation 21). Awesome right, the most precious things on Earth. Well Heaven is more than that." Here I start hearing echoes of Anselm's ontological argument for God's existence ("Now image something greater than anything else that could ever be imagined...").
The important thing is a warning against arrogance. If I believe I can think everything out then what scripture has to tell me is no more than what I can already reason out. But if I realize there are just some things that I cannot work out in my own mind, that is just something that indicates there is more out there than meets the eye. In fact, it is so fantastic that right now I can't even fully imagine what it is, so my desire to find out is inflamed even more.
Friday, March 03, 2017
Second Post - Lent 2017 with C. S. Lewis (The Weight of Glory)
"If a transtemporal, transfinite good is our real destiny, then any other good on which our desire fixes must be in some degree fallacious, must bear at best only a symbolic relation to what will truly satisfy... Almost our whole education has been directed to silence this shy, persistent, inner voice; almost all our modern philosophies have been devised to convince us that the good of man is to be found on this earth. And yet it is a remarkable thing that such philosophies of Progress or Creative Evolution themselves bear witness to the truth that our real goal is elsewhere. When they want to convince you that earth is your home, notice how they set about it. They begin by trying to persuade you that earth can be made into heaven, thus giving a sop to your sense of exile in earth as it is. Next, they tell you that this fortunate event is still a good way off in the future, thus giving a sop to your knowledge that the fatherland is not here and now. Finally, least your longing for the transtemporal should awake and spoil the whole affair, they use any rhetoric that comes to hand to keep out of your mind the recollection that even if all the happiness they promised could come to man on earth, yet still each generation would lose it by death... Do what they will, then, we remain conscious of a desire which no natural happiness will satisfy."
- C. S.Lewis, "The Weight of Glory"
There is a lot in this section of Lewis' address which I left out including some examples that, depending on whether or not you have a schoolboy's love for Greek literature, may or may not resonate. I encourage you to read it to see the whole of his thought (you can get a PDF version here).
I want to look at Lewis' idea about destiny and desire. For the Christian it is pretty straightforward, that the experience of salvation creates a transfer of citizenship from earth to heaven (see for example Philippians 3:19-20). If you read that section of scripture though you see more than that change of earthly passport. Those whose citizenship is not heaven have their minds on "earthly things" but we eagerly await the coming of the Savior. Lest we get the idea that this is the ONLY thing though, let's look at the structure of that section of scripture as laid out. It isn't a single proposition but rather a contrast (just like this sentence). "BUT our citizenship is in heaven". Stepping back we see there are two categories in contrast, those who have not as of yet come to a saving relationship with Christ who are described as having their stomach as their god, their shame is their glory, and their mind is set on earthly things. In addressing the believers in Philippi, Paul builds a contrast: BUT OUR citizenship is in heaven. So if those whose citizenship is earth have certain desires this would imply that we should not be this way or as Lewis says "any other good [non-heavenly] must be fallacious". So knowing this what should we do? Here is where we have a tie to the season of Lent.
The Dean of our cathedral talks of Lent as a call to holiness. Now there is a lot to unpack in that little word "holiness" and unfortunately it has come to have a distorted meaning these days. If you want to spend some time a good place to start is here but I'll cut to the chase. Holiness at its core (outside of as applied to God directly) is that of set aside for a special use and in the Judeo-Christian case set aside for the work of God. Admittedly this is a bit of a gloss but it does give us the core. So given our citizenship is in heaven, examining Paul's contrast what we really have is a call to holiness. How do we do that? By not allowing our stomach to be our god (that is, guided simply by base desires), by not having our mind fixed on earthly things. Here again Lewis' words to this point are echos of scripture. Desires in and of themselves are not bad. Desires for heavenly reward or not bad and do not create a mercenary situation. Rather, what are our desires focused on? In settling for here and now we are selling ourselves short because for us there is so much more. Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying this world is of no account and that I have no obligations here. There is an old saying where I am from: "Don't be so heavenly minded that you are of no earthly good". But being citizens of heavenly and trying to put on the mind of Christ through the work of the Holy Spirit in our hearts our desires have a heavenly connection which should lead us to do good here. The call to holiness then is trying to make sense of all of this and to do it. Desires are not a bad thing in and of themselves and scripture makes statements about God giving us the desires of our heart (with some conditions on how to get there), but looking at totality of the message for Christians it doesn't mean God is a genie granting wishes, rather as we set ourselves apart for service, as we come to make our heavenly citizenship more real, the desires of our heart move toward the desires of God so that there is less and less conflict between OUR desires and God's desires. That is moving towards holiness. It's not giving up things for Lent that add to holiness, but rather trying to look at things in our lives through God's eyes and ask "Is this REALLY what I want to have/do/be?" and if not, why continue in it?
Lewis goes on to talk about how this desire for something else, something "transtemporal, transfinite good" competes with contemporary society and this sets an interesting situation that I don't think he intended to address here but I will take a small stab at it. What about those who aren't Christian? The world structure is set up to try to dissuade people from looking at something other than here. They talk about "heaven is a place on earth", that we just need to wait for people to come around ("heaven can be a place on earth"), and that in the final act go into nihilism and say "well, even if you reach that goal you're still going to die so what's the point in this heaven thing? Just live for now". And yet, even through all of this, there is a desire in humanity for something better. Life can be better. We can treat people better. Better, always better. Things can only be better if there is a standard or goal else how can you make a comparison? But if this desire for better shows up everywhere, how does that happen? Not wanting to debate evolutionary theories here I take what I think would be Lewis' position (probably because it is something I have been thinking about for a while)... the idea of "imago dei", that all mankind bares within the "image of God". Christian and non-Christian alike, we all have this as part of our humanity. It is from here we have this sense of desire for the good, trying to make things better. So even the non-Christian isn't exempt from this sense of longing, this looking for something more in our lives.
- C. S.Lewis, "The Weight of Glory"
There is a lot in this section of Lewis' address which I left out including some examples that, depending on whether or not you have a schoolboy's love for Greek literature, may or may not resonate. I encourage you to read it to see the whole of his thought (you can get a PDF version here).
I want to look at Lewis' idea about destiny and desire. For the Christian it is pretty straightforward, that the experience of salvation creates a transfer of citizenship from earth to heaven (see for example Philippians 3:19-20). If you read that section of scripture though you see more than that change of earthly passport. Those whose citizenship is not heaven have their minds on "earthly things" but we eagerly await the coming of the Savior. Lest we get the idea that this is the ONLY thing though, let's look at the structure of that section of scripture as laid out. It isn't a single proposition but rather a contrast (just like this sentence). "BUT our citizenship is in heaven". Stepping back we see there are two categories in contrast, those who have not as of yet come to a saving relationship with Christ who are described as having their stomach as their god, their shame is their glory, and their mind is set on earthly things. In addressing the believers in Philippi, Paul builds a contrast: BUT OUR citizenship is in heaven. So if those whose citizenship is earth have certain desires this would imply that we should not be this way or as Lewis says "any other good [non-heavenly] must be fallacious". So knowing this what should we do? Here is where we have a tie to the season of Lent.
The Dean of our cathedral talks of Lent as a call to holiness. Now there is a lot to unpack in that little word "holiness" and unfortunately it has come to have a distorted meaning these days. If you want to spend some time a good place to start is here but I'll cut to the chase. Holiness at its core (outside of as applied to God directly) is that of set aside for a special use and in the Judeo-Christian case set aside for the work of God. Admittedly this is a bit of a gloss but it does give us the core. So given our citizenship is in heaven, examining Paul's contrast what we really have is a call to holiness. How do we do that? By not allowing our stomach to be our god (that is, guided simply by base desires), by not having our mind fixed on earthly things. Here again Lewis' words to this point are echos of scripture. Desires in and of themselves are not bad. Desires for heavenly reward or not bad and do not create a mercenary situation. Rather, what are our desires focused on? In settling for here and now we are selling ourselves short because for us there is so much more. Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying this world is of no account and that I have no obligations here. There is an old saying where I am from: "Don't be so heavenly minded that you are of no earthly good". But being citizens of heavenly and trying to put on the mind of Christ through the work of the Holy Spirit in our hearts our desires have a heavenly connection which should lead us to do good here. The call to holiness then is trying to make sense of all of this and to do it. Desires are not a bad thing in and of themselves and scripture makes statements about God giving us the desires of our heart (with some conditions on how to get there), but looking at totality of the message for Christians it doesn't mean God is a genie granting wishes, rather as we set ourselves apart for service, as we come to make our heavenly citizenship more real, the desires of our heart move toward the desires of God so that there is less and less conflict between OUR desires and God's desires. That is moving towards holiness. It's not giving up things for Lent that add to holiness, but rather trying to look at things in our lives through God's eyes and ask "Is this REALLY what I want to have/do/be?" and if not, why continue in it?
Lewis goes on to talk about how this desire for something else, something "transtemporal, transfinite good" competes with contemporary society and this sets an interesting situation that I don't think he intended to address here but I will take a small stab at it. What about those who aren't Christian? The world structure is set up to try to dissuade people from looking at something other than here. They talk about "heaven is a place on earth", that we just need to wait for people to come around ("heaven can be a place on earth"), and that in the final act go into nihilism and say "well, even if you reach that goal you're still going to die so what's the point in this heaven thing? Just live for now". And yet, even through all of this, there is a desire in humanity for something better. Life can be better. We can treat people better. Better, always better. Things can only be better if there is a standard or goal else how can you make a comparison? But if this desire for better shows up everywhere, how does that happen? Not wanting to debate evolutionary theories here I take what I think would be Lewis' position (probably because it is something I have been thinking about for a while)... the idea of "imago dei", that all mankind bares within the "image of God". Christian and non-Christian alike, we all have this as part of our humanity. It is from here we have this sense of desire for the good, trying to make things better. So even the non-Christian isn't exempt from this sense of longing, this looking for something more in our lives.
Thursday, March 02, 2017
First Post - Lent 2017 with C. S. Lewis (The Weight of Glory)
To restart the blog I decided to begin with something simple, recording part of my journey through Lent 2017. I have a morning devotional I am going through that was published by my church. For my evening devotions I am slowly and reading with great attention to something I have read before... "The Weight of Glory" by C. S. Lewis (order here). This is my post (copied from Facebook) on last night's reading:
"...
it would seem that Our Lord finds our desires not too strong but too
weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex
and ambition when infinite joy is offered us., like an ignorant child
who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine
what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too
easily pleased."
- C. S. Lewis, "The Weight of Glory"
I find this an enlightening point of view. Earlier in the passage Lewis talks about how people think self-denial is the right thing to do, but he points out that in scripture self-denial is never posited as an ends unto itself. This is something especially important for Lent. People talk about giving up something for Lent but rarely why they gave that thing up. The purpose is not simply self-denial. Lent is a season of self-examination, a time to reevaluate what we think is important in life and why. We can use it as a time to say "This thing I believe I like really isn't important. In fact I can make my life better by not engaging in it." We can take another look at this in light of the passage from Lewis. Rather than saying "I am giving up X" how about "Instead of doing X I will do Y because it is better for me and my daily walk." Rather than just giving something up to give something up, perhaps we should say "I gave something up to get something better".
- C. S. Lewis, "The Weight of Glory"
I find this an enlightening point of view. Earlier in the passage Lewis talks about how people think self-denial is the right thing to do, but he points out that in scripture self-denial is never posited as an ends unto itself. This is something especially important for Lent. People talk about giving up something for Lent but rarely why they gave that thing up. The purpose is not simply self-denial. Lent is a season of self-examination, a time to reevaluate what we think is important in life and why. We can use it as a time to say "This thing I believe I like really isn't important. In fact I can make my life better by not engaging in it." We can take another look at this in light of the passage from Lewis. Rather than saying "I am giving up X" how about "Instead of doing X I will do Y because it is better for me and my daily walk." Rather than just giving something up to give something up, perhaps we should say "I gave something up to get something better".
After all this time...
It's been a LONG while since I have written on this blog. At first I thought I would just start another one but then decided it would be an interesting experiment to see what has changed since the last time I did much regular blogging.
Hopefully I can maintain it again.
Hopefully I can maintain it again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)