Football, European style

What did Adam and Eve do when they lived in the Garden of Eden? They probably picked fruits off trees and bushes, pulled vegetables from the ground, and walked and talked with God. That doesn't sound anything like work to me. What do we do all the time? We work, eat, and sleep. Paradise is all about balance. Doing what needs to be done (generally with a spoonful of sugar), and leisure. We don't have nearly enough leisure time. That's why we need to play soccer. It is good for the body, it is good for the mind, and it is good for the spirit.
Ole Ole!

The Abolition of Man

"It is not that they are bad men. They are not men at all. Stepping outside the Tao, they have stepped into the void. Nor are their subjects necessarily unhappy men. They are not men at all: they are artefacts. Man's final conquest has proved to be the abolition of Man." -C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man

This entire book is just a little bit over my head. i think it's because he goes back and forth between explaining what so-and-so thinks the world should be like, what's wrong with what so-and-so thinks, what he thinks, and what the world is actually like. That's a lot to keep track. I'm pretty sure i agree with what he's saying. As men move towards a more atheistic society, they become less and less human.

I don't like that Lewis doesn't use the Bible. I understand that perhaps he's crafting a non-religious argument, but the piece doesn't seem right without God. It seems just not right.

Mere Christianity

Something about Mere Christianity made me think I could have written it. I probably couldn't have, but nothing in it was really so new to me.

I really like the context of Mere Christianity. Literature is always a bit different when it isn't just read in a book. The fact that it was broadcast to pilots seems really cool. I wonder how many people were touched by the broadcast. I wonder if any were saved. I wonder if they were able to concentrate on dog-fighting instead of on Natural Law and God.

Lewis brings a pretty solid argument to the table. The discussion we had in class regarding God and morality is very interesting as well. Do the two ideas conflict?

Festival of Faith and Writing: Philia in Narnia

Rather than going to class on Friday, since it was cancelled, i went to a Festival of Faith and Writing session about C.S. Lewis. the speaker talked about "The Four Loves" and Narnia. He made it seem, and quite accurately, that Narnia was to some extent Lewis' way of demonstrating the ideas he writes about in his books, such as "The Four Loves," specifically Philia. The speaker gave examples of Philia in Narnia to prove his point. he mentioned Lucy and Tumnus, Aravis and Shasta, Caspian and Cornelius, and Polly and Digory. All four pairs had very different relationships (Lucy and Tumnus met and were very good friends, Aravis and Shasta fought about everything but ended up marrying, Caspian and Cornelius were Tutor and Pupil, and Polly and Digory were very good friends that never married), and all four are described somewhat in Lewis' chapter. If I recall correctly, Lewis says that men and women (boys and girls) can't be friends without some kind of romantic attachment, yes? He therefore proves himself very wrong with Polly and Digory.

Chivalry

If we are discussing Lewis' idea of chivalry, which we are, we must first establish that we are not speaking of opening doors and pushing in chairs. Chivalry is Strength and Humility.

Strength and Humility.

Chivalry (as strength and humility), is not something that ought to be debated-- whether it exists, who uses it, does it fit present day-- chivalry exists, and if it doesn't, it ought to. There is not a man alive who has any reason to be anything other than strong and humble. To be contrary is to be self-centered, which is perhaps the greatest crime to commit.

Also, humility should be one of a Christian's strongest traits.

That is all.

Priestesses in the Church

Women have always been prophets. Every woman mentioned in the Old Testament teaches us something about God and His People. The women in the New Testament do the same thing, and some acknowledge it. Who in the Bible stood as a representation of God himself? Moses spoke with God and delivered the Ten Commandments. David was "A man after God's own heart." Jesus is the only person who has ever existed that we can look to as a representation of our Father in Heaven, because he is our Father in Heaven. There has never been a man alive who was righteous enough to represent God to his people.
The priests in the Old Testament-- Aaron and his descendants-- brought the prayers of the people before God. They were mediators, but they were not representatives of God. Who ever said that priests need to be male so that they can represent God to his people? Doesn't the second commandment say, "Do not make for yourself any idols"?
Lewis says God is masculine, and the Church (his bridegroom) is feminine. For this reason, a priest needs to be male. If a priest represents God, is he then a part of the Church at all? In my opinion, a Priest ought to represent the Church to God, as they did in the Old Testament, rather than God to the Church.

Show and Tell

C.S. Lewis:
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."

"It costs God nothing, so far as we know, to create nice things: but to convert rebellious wills cost him crucifixion."
-Surprised by Joy

"Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later."
-The case for Christianity

Lewis Speech

Given the choice between reading and listening to C.S. Lewis, I'd take reading any day. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think he's such a great speaker. He has such powerful words, but the way he delivers them just doesn't quite do it.


To love is to risk suffering. What more needs to be said? Lewis is so right on with this statement that I can find nothing to disagree with. People everywhere suffer from broken hearts. This is not a disease, it is life. Life is only worth living when we are able to risk loving others. If we don't love anyone and choose to tightly wrap our love inside us to keep it safe, we avoid getting hurt by others, but end up hurting ourselves. Life is about Love, and Love is about risking it all.

The Real Inner Ring

Except for the last bit on Friendship, Lewis seems to not like the idea of inner rings at all. they are a vain pursuit and don't lead to excellence in life. He is forgetting one thing, however, and that is the Kingdom of God.
The Kingdom of God is the greatest inner ring that ever existed. Do not be deceived, however. The Church is not the Kingdom. They are similar, but the Church is made of sinful people, it is acknowledged, and it is often the exact same as the rings Lewis describes. The Kingdom, on the other hand, is full of people who know something that no one else knows. They know the love of God, and they know the rewards of living with the fruits of the spirit. One essential difference, however, is that the people of the kingdom make it a group goal to include everyone, instead of exclude.

The Four Loves: Philia

Friendship, says Lewis, is actually experienced for real by a very few people. In my experience, this is true, and I would go even further with it. I would say that in general, more females experience the friendship Lewis describes ("In each of my friends there is something that only some other friend can fully bring out"). Guys can have loads and loads of companions who they can joke with, have fun with, and get along with, but they might never get down to discussing life and life's problems with their companions. Some male companions can become friends and some men might have a number of good friends, but in my opinion, more girls will have good friends than guys. Girls also might have companions to share fun times with, but because of how females behave, they are more prone to have good friends.
In many cases, girls create conflicts among companions much easier than boys do, and because they are required to work through their conflicts, they in turn become less of companions and more of friends, because they see each and every emotion of each other. Guys generally show one or two sides of themselves with their companions and keep the rest of themselves hidden. I do not suggest that there are no exceptions. There are many exceptions. Though Lewis says this friendship is 'non-natural', it is also part of being a child of God. Unnatural though it may be, friendship should be a part of ever Christian's life, since friendship as Lewis describes it is intimacy, which is vulnerability, which is sharing yourself with others, which is being a servant.

Eros and Agape

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son." -John 3:16.
We discussed in class like C.S. Lewis discusses in "The Four Loves" that Eros is the most similar to Agape of all the forms of love. Most people who take time to consider this and perhaps read his book would agree quite easily, but many of them do not know from experience. I know from experience. Let me explain.
Rachael and I began dating on February 15, 2007. It didn't take long for us to realize how big our God was in our relationship. Providence that brought us together, for starters, but in those first few months i learned more about God than I ever have. For example, one of her favorite movie quotes is from Kevin Costner's Robin Hood, and it goes like this:
Marian: You came for me... you're alive...
Robin: I'd die for you.
Eventually, I came to feel the same way as Robin Hood, and then I thought of John 3:16, and how that is exactly what God did for us.It was a very big deal to be able to relate to who God is personally, and i consider it a huge gift to experience it personally. God would do anything for us, and that is his Agape love. I would do anything for Rachael, and that is Eros, planted in God's Agape.

P.S. I don't really like C.S. Lewis' choice to use 'Eros', since Eros was the Greek god of love, and he was all about sex, and not really about love. Oh well.

"Learning in Wartime" vs. EGW Ch. 5

Vocation is for adults. whether or not it should be or not, it is. Grade school students have no idea what vocation is, High school students begin thinking about vocation (knowingly or not), college students search for and pursue vocation, and adults either have found vocation, or have not. I think i like what Lewis says in Learning in Wartime better than what Plantinga says. So much of life is completely pointless, and when viewed properly, all of life is pointless. Nothing is ever normal, and it never should be. In Lewis' view, humanity is pretty pessimistic. Without vocation and without God, life isn't worth living, normal or not.

At the end of the discussion, aren't we all called as Christians to be first and foremost bearers of God's image and sharers of his Love? This is our vocation. it doesn't matter where we learn, it doesn't matter how mixed up our environments are, it doesn't matter where we live, just as long as we're sharing God's love and bearing his image in the best way we know how. This is our vocation.

Screwtape Letters II

It was very easy for me to see and understand the 'human undulation' on the day we read about it for a few reasons. I've noticed that pattern in my life and in the life of others, and it seems universal. I myself was somewhere on the bottom slope of an undulation at the time, and so I could identify well. "He wants them to learn to walk and must therefore take away His hand; and if only the will to walk is really there He is pleased even with their stumbles." Being in a trough (a shallow one, but a trough none-the-less), it is easier to understand what Lewis means by this quote. I may feel like God is not so near as he was before, but that isn't the point. the point is that he wants me to make the effort to walk with him, so that he knows that i want to. To use another metaphor, if we were riding a tandem bicycle, then when both riders pedal, the going is pretty easy. but if one person stops pedaling, the other has to work harder. If God stops pedaling, he's still on the bike, he just wants to know that we still want to ride with him, and are willing to work for it.

EGW ch. 1

"Oh Lord, you have made us for yourself, and our heart is restless until it rests in you."
Father in Heaven, I pray with all my heart that my heart would rest in you. The pressures of the ordinary have been a distraction for long enough, and my heart aches again for you. motivate me to seek after you instead of "real life." We were made for You, not You for us.

Screwtape Letters 1

"By the very act of arguing, you awake the patient's reason; and once it is awake, who can foresee the result? Even if a particular train of thought can be twisted so as to end in our favour, you will find that you have been strengthening in your patient the fatal habit of attending to universal issues and withdrawing his attention from the stream of immediate sense experiences."
I find that when i spend time playing video games instead of studying, or when I browse the internet instead of read my Bible, that i become much less happy. I can function well, but my head isn't clear, and i lose motivation. The days that i spend time thinking and studying-- it doesn't matter what-- i feel much better about myself, and it becomes easier to read my Bible consistently and pray more often. It actually saddens me to see so many people stuck in this rut of irrelevant, unimpassioned living. I wonder if they know what they're missing out on. The beach is hundreds of times better than the sandbox (i would have said infinitely, but this is only a metaphor, and this metaphor doesn't extend quite that far).

Show-and-tell assignment

One of my favorite things about Narnia is Aslan. But not just Aslan because he's a lion and he's really cool, but the way Lewis uses him as a metaphor. It's cool that Aslan = God, but whats cooler is the way Lewis makes that evident in dialogue as well as action. Recently i re-read all seven of the books, and in just about every book, there is a conversation similar to this one:
"You mean," said Lucy rather faintly, "that it would have turned out all right - somehow? But how? Please Aslan! Am i not to know?" "To know what would have happened, child? said Aslan. "No. Nobody is ever told that."
I continue to remember these conversations after finishing the books, and i think about what Aslan said. It's really a different perspective, knowing that what would have happened isn't important.

We Have No Right to Happiness

Where does Lewis say, except in the title, that we have no right to happiness? In his example, the man divorced his wife in order to be happier. This, as Lewis displays, is an awful thing to do, because it is selfish, and in the end, it will be the downfall of our race. But does the man really achieve happiness at all? Perhaps he has a right to happiness. Perhaps he has no right to divorce his wife in order to take another, but Perhaps he has a right to happiness. I say this because I do not think Mr. A will be any happier with his new wife than he was with his old wife. he may experience ecstasy, and it may last for several years, but will he really be happy? If Mr. A is really in love with Mrs. B, then maybe he'll be happy for the rest of his life. But then why wasn't he happy with Mrs. A? I suppose because he wasn't in love with her. But then why did he marry her? The fact is, we live in a fallen world. Just like the boy playing in the mud, we usually can't see the greater good that is being offered to us. Mr. A moved from the muddy sandbox onto the slimy swing perhaps, which made him happy, but perhaps he would have been far happier if he had waited in the muddy sandbox for his father to take him to the shore even after he had lost all interest in the mud.

Our English Syllabus

"The student is, or ought to be, a young man who is already beginning to follow learning for its own sake..."
When my Dad's father attended Calvin Seminary, i believe he was the first in his family. his wife was the only child in her family to graduate high school. My mom's father graduated from 8th grade, and his wife may have attended high school. One generation ago, my mother and father and all their siblings attended college, and were very blessed to do so. In this generation, my siblings and I are all attending college and quite enjoying the learning. This is not the case with many peers, nor is it the case with a large collection of students throughout the nation. C.S. Lewis regrets that higher education has become 'final education', and describes how education is a life-long pursuit. Today, many students don't appreciate the taste of the life-long learning that 4 years offer, because higher education has become 'normal'.
On a different note, i'm not sure C.S. Lewis is entirely correct. Higher education nowadays is primarily meant to teach students how to learn, and secondarily to help students explore, and thirdly to give students occupations. Higher education has changed, as Lewis described, but it has changed again since Lewis' day, and i think what it has become is in many ways exactly what today's world needs.

Weight of Glory

I am especially fond of Lewis' analogy of Greek poetry. To study greek for the purpose of enjoying Greek poetry would be silly, and probably impossible. One must study a language for several years before being truly able to enjoy its poetry. To aim for this enjoyment without having any experience with the language seems rather impossible. When the goal is so far away, one has no motivation to work towards it.
Near the end, when Lewis finally reaches the namesake sentence of his essay, one can easily understand exactly what he means when he says 'weight of glory'. such a standard is impossible without God's grace. But even so, i find myself attracted to the challenge. To devote everything to attaining glory in the afterlife (Heaven) seems like such a great adventure, who would ever want to pass it up? One who can't see beyond the muddy sandbox.

Bulverism

Lewis' essay on Bulverism is not actually about Bulverism at all; Bulverism is just a digression he continually returns to. Lewis is really talking about the way differing worldviews are discoursed. He points out how many times reasonable arguments are in fact not reasonable, and how other arguments are not actually relevant. Then he mentions that many times the arguments are made personal (though quite irrational and irrelevant) by a technique he calls Bulverism. Once this is stated, he goes back to arguing for rationale and logic in discussing big issues. Bulverism is a distraction from discourse, and it is a negative one. In the case of this essay, I think Bulverism is also a distraction from what he's actually getting at, though perhaps this distraction is more important than the actual topic of discussion.