Integrative Essay

Christopher Thyberg

IDIS 150-07 - DCM - C.S. Lewis

January 24^th, 2011

Professors Paulo and Adriana Ribeiro

Over the past three weeks we have been given a great deal of knowledge. We have received wisdom from C.S. Lewis, Cornelius Plantinga, as well as from both our professors. We have read a multitude of works, discussed a variety of topics, and have participated in some deep self-discovery. The question that now arises is; how does this new information shift our views on life, and more importantly how does it change the way we live from here on out? Because we were given such a wide array of knowledge there is no conceivable way that I could thoroughly discuss each subject to a satisfactory degree. Instead I will discuss Lewis’ works: Weight Of Glory, Mere Christianity, and The Screwtape Letters. In addition to this I will evaluate Plantinga’s work with a focus on vocation. It is my hope that I can find ways to integrate these pieces, not just together, but also into our every day lives.

The first piece that I want to discuss is Mere Christianity. This piece is one of the best apologetic writings I have ever read. Our moral conscience is something that we generally just accept. We feel guilt and remorse for our actions, as well as frustration when people act in ways that we deem unfair, but we don’t often stop to question why some things are considered fair and others aren’t. If some things are fairer than others, than there must be some sort of standard to compare them to. Even on a global scale throughout different time periods and cultures, our basic morality has stayed the same. Certainly details, names, and some reasons have changed, but the basic principles remain. Lewis explains this more in his piece The Abolition of Man where he describes the morality of different cultures, finding them to be far more similar than different. From his findings there seems to be a natural law that transcends time and culture. It has been said that our moral law is nothing more than a pack instinct where we want to do what is best to preserve the group. But this is not fully satisfactory. When we hear a man’s cry for help we have two instincts. The first is the self-preservation instinct; we don’t act because we want to keep ourselves safe. The second is the pack instinct that wants to help the man. In addition to these two impulses, there is a third thing, which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run away.  Since this thing judges the two instincts, and decides which should be encouraged, it cannot be either one of these two instincts. "The Moral Law tells us the tune we have to play: our instincts are merely the keys." (Lewis, Mere Christianity) Lewis believes that our moral code comes from a higher being. He uses all of Mere Christianity to explain why it is a higher being, and then from there he explains why he believes it is the god of the Christian religion.

With a strong apologetic argument in place for why we should believe in God, it can now be examined for what this means for each of us in our daily lives.  Stated plainly, it changes everything. Our lives are not based on simple chance and a random accident. We were created by God, to live in community with Him for eternity. In his work The Weight Of Glory Lewis describes the potential that is found in each and every one of us. We are all souls, not only that, but we are immortal souls. We have the opportunity to find eternal peace with God, or everlasting pain in Hell. But we don’t often work like that do we? "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 and 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." (Lewis, Weight Of Glory) In our lives, we find satisfaction in half-hearted exploits. We seek simple, passing happiness that dissipates in the wind through time. This is not how God intended us to live. These things are not in themselves bad. In fact, they are often attached to God in some way. But we cannot mistake them for the real thing; our life in eternity is on the line. The next important part of this is that what we do to either help or hinder others in their personal spiritual journeys has a significant impact on their future. We must treat each other with the utmost care. We are not dealing with passing objects or mortal beings; each human being is an immortal spirit that should be treated with respect.

If there is an all-powerful God, and we are immortal souls created to live with Him, we must live in accordance with this design. In The Screwtape Letters Lewis shows some of the ways that we as Christians often fail in this task. The story is of a Head Devil, Screwtape, writing to his nephew, Wormwood. Wormwood is in the process of tempting a “patient,” a newly converted Christian man. Throughout the entire book Lewis lists countless different aspects of human weakness and how we can be manipulated by the devil, however in our class we focused on Chapter 12. In this chapter Lewis delves into how small habits can be used against us to pull us away from God. When we become complacent with our situation and do not strive to get closer to God we will drift away. Our faith cannot stay in one place. It either grows or it recedes. If the devil can have us satisfied with basic temptations he can draw our attention away from God. Screwtape even goes as far as to tell Wormwood that, “indeed the safest road to Hell is the gradual one-the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts." (Lewis, The Screwtape Letters) We do not need to commit major sins, if a minor one is enough. Every action, no matter how small or seemingly insignificant is pointless. Everything we do has an effect and can never be undone, we can change our situation and fix things certainly, but we cannot go back in time to stop it from happening. From The Screwtape Letters we see the danger of us become idle in our faith. We should not fear the pleasure in life that God gives us, because many things in life are God’s gift to us. But we must be conscientious of what we follow and if it distracts us from God. And we must always be aware of the “dim uneasiness” we feel when we become distant from God. We cannot let the uneasiness grow; rather, we should face it head on in prayer. That is the only way that we can become fully aware of our situation.

            In addition to Lewis’ works, Plantinga’s book, Engaging God’s World, allows us to view the world from a Christian Reformed view. The chapter that is most useful to our everyday application is vocation. Plantinga explains that vocation is so much more than just our job. It is our deepest calling in life; it is our role in the plan that God has made for us. God has dominion over everything, but He also gives us power over our own kingdoms. “In fact, to some extent we are all rulers just because God has created us in his own image to have responsible dominion.” (Plantinga, 107) Our vocation is to integrate our kingdom into shalom with God’s kingdom. This will transcend every aspect of our life. Family, friends, church, jobs, hobbies, and all other parts of our existence will come into place. “Successful living in God’s world depends not only on taking responsibility for our own realm and preserving it if we can. Success depends on meshing our kingdom with the kingdoms of others.” (Plantinga, 108)

            In my opinion, vocation is the answer to how we integrate what we learned from C.S. Lewis and Plantinga into our everyday life. From Mere Christianity Lewis makes a decisive argument to the existence of God. This puts a huge impact on how we live life. The moral code is no longer an animalistic instinct, it is the law of God. Therefore, our vocation should be in the pursuit of justice. We do not all need to become police officers, but morality and integrity should be ingrained in the way we conduct ourselves, be it at work or with our loved ones. Following this in Weight of Glory, if God created us as immortal souls, we deserve each other’s respect. Part of vocation is bringing our personal kingdoms into harmony with others. We have the potential to help others to Heaven or Hell, and it is part of our duty to be a strong a supporter to them as we possibly can be. And finally as described in The Screwtape Letters, there are the distractions offered by the devil to lure us away from our vocation. Satan wants nothing more than to lead us from the light. We must always be aware of our state with God, praying constantly, so that we can be sure that we are right with Him, following our vocation.

            College is the time for us to learn about our vocation, and to see the plan that God has for us. College is our time for training and preparing ourselves for the future. College is where you get the skills for your new career, it is where many people meet their future spouse, and it is where people “discover themselves.” This can be done at any college, but at Calvin College we are offered the unique opportunity to grow spiritually, looking at the world from a different perspective. Calvin gives us the chance to take our theology and integrate into every inch of our life. Every piece of literature we read, every math problem we solve, every friendship we make, every Bible passage we discuss, all of this is a part of our vocational training. We integrate what we learned in this class the same way we integrate anything we learn, we pray and we use our discernment for God’s judgment, and then take that knowledge to make us more of the person that God intended us to be.

WORKS CITED

Lewis, C.S. “The Weight of Glory.” Calvin College ~pribeiro. N.p.: n.d. Web. 24 January 2011

Lewis, C.S. “Mere Christianity.” Calvin College ~pribeiro. N.p.: n.d. Web. 24 January 2011

Lewis, C.S. “The Screwtape Letters.” Calvin College ~pribeiro. N.p.: n.d. Web. 24 January 2011

Plantinga, Cornelius. Engaging God's World. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2002. 103-137. Print.

                       

The Paradox of Pain

We all have pain, it is one of the most inevitable facts of life. But we were created by a God who loves us and who wants to bring us joy. If God is omnipotent and all powerful as we believe, then why do we all suffer every day? Why is there tragedy and hardship in all our lives? In his talk Kreeft even says that this has been cited as one of, if not the biggest argument against Christianity. It is something that I think all of us have struggled with at one point or another. Lewis' book, "The Problem of Pain" tries to answer how a God who is all powerful and fully good can allow pain and suffering to be present in the world.

One of the first things that Lewis talks about is that a lot of pain comes from human beings. Where fallen creatures live together there is bound to be conflict. Humans have created weapons, have fought each other, lied, cheated and caused pain to others. God does not cause this pain.

However, what about the other forms of pain in our life? Natural disasters, It seems funny at first to think that God allows pain in our lives. Perhaps funny isn't a strong enough word. Backwards, paradoxical, wrong even. But Lewis' explains why pain can be a good thing in our lives. When our lives are going well, aren't we fully content with our situation. We want for nothing. The problem with this is, that we don't want for God. We are usually consumed with our present situation and think to ourselves that we are content with what we have. Friends, money--later in life, our own family, a house. We acquire small things and we think they are enough to keep us happy. We look for anything and everything to find happiness in. Everything except for God. But think about when a tragedy occurs, we turn again to God. When life is difficult we turn to prayer, to God's comfort.

Lewis believes that God uses pain as a way to remind us to turn to Him. God is not proud. If He were, He would only accept us if we turned to Him with pure intentions. But as Lewis says, God "stoops to conquer." He is willing to meet us anyway He can.
So perhaps pain and suffering in our lives is not a paradox against the existence of God. Maybe God uses pain so that we realize the finitude of the things we search for, so that we realized we need something bigger than ourselves. We live in a fallen, broken world, and we are searching for answers. God is trying to help us look for Him. We will always fall short, but through God's grace, we still find forgiveness and redemption.

Are We Men Or Rabbits?

When I read C.S. Lewis paper on "Man or Rabbit?" The thing that I was most struck by was when Lewis spoke about Confucius, Socrates, and J. S. Mill. Lewis seems to talk about hoping that God will find mercy for these men because they were in an honest state of ignorance, or in J. S. Mill's case, he was in an honest state of error. I have always really struggled with the idea of eternal damnation that is given to those who do not follow God. I have always had a hard time with this because God is a loving God. I understand that He is also a just God and therefore we need to face our sentence. But it still confuses me many times when I think about God sending people to an eternity in Hell. I think when I become most confused is in the two examples that Lewis talks about between Socrates and Confucius as well as J. S. Mill's.
Socrates and Confucius were great human beings who worked for the betterment of men. But they did not know God, because Jesus and his message had not reached them. They were ignorant of God's existence. It seems harsh that God could damn them when it was completely outside of their control whether or not they had heard of him. They were members of honest ignorance. It seems like Lewis' says that he hopes that God finds a way to have mercy on them, and I agree with him. "I hope and believe that the skill and mercy of God will remedy the evils which their ignorance, left to itself, would naturally produce both for them and for those whom they influenced."
 On an even grander scale is J. S. Mill. He was not ignorant of God's existence, but he could not come to terms with it. But from what I understood from Lewis, Mill tried as hard as he could to understand Christianity and he could not believe it. Lewis describes this as an honest error. I often wonder about people of other religions and what their fate in eternity will be. I really cringe at the idea that people who are searching for truth, who want to serve God, but maybe have grown up in a different religion, will be damned. I think this idea is scary to me because I think had I been raised in a different religion I would be that religion. I grew up in a Christian household, and although I have chosen this faith for myself now, I do think that it is really tough to abandon what you have been taught by your family and friends. Religion is a huge part of culture and so it defines a lot of how we are raised and what we believe. Certainly we have time to grow and change, but if we are being honest we know that it is difficult. The Bible even says for parents to teach their children in the faith. I do not like the idea that God will save only those who will have been exposed to his teachings in the right atmosphere. In my opinion it doesn't seem loving or just to create human beings if they have no purpose other than to live and then go to Hell. I know it is not my place to question God, and there really is no way for us to know if those people go to Heaven or Hell. I liked that Lewis left this question open ended. But this question has always been a difficult struggle in my faith. And I certainly hope that God finds a way in His mercy to redeem us. Because we all make mistakes, and we are all ignorant.

Vocation

The idea of vocation is one of the biggest aspect's of college life in my opinion. We are not just learning skills for future careers, but also the abilities to discern what God is calling us to do in many aspects of our life. From marriage, to children, to church, to how we spend our free time--college is designed to teach us how to sift through all these major life issues, and to see how we can use them to fit into the kingdom.

I think a part of this that I found most insightful, was the concept of all of us having our own individual kingdoms. That Christ is King of Kings, but this means that there are steps and levels of control that we all have. It's an interesting concept to think about, because in a way it makes a lot of sense. God rules over all, but here on earth we need various leaders to represent countries, other leaders to represent states, others still for cities, even more for business, and the list goes on and on for the many different aspects of life that we have "dominion" (I use this term loosely since all our power and control is from God) over. I really like this as an analogy for us reaching towards shalom. All of our kingdoms, family, work, friends, church, neighborhoods and community, nationally, and internationally are meshed together with God reigning over us. It is a really beautiful idea.

This concentric circle can be seen as the connecting circles of kingdoms in our lives as God is the overarching circle that encompasses us all.

As I mentioned before, college is the time for us to be getting our "training" for these kingdoms. Plantinga says, and I agree, that there is a real advantage to going to a Christian college. Educational training for work is a great thing, but it is only one aspect of our vocation. We want to learn how to look at the world from a Christian perspective so we can see where God wants us, and not just where the best jobs are. We are given Christian professors who genuinely care about our well being and who will take care of us. This is a great thing because without guidance we can often fall into dangerous situations that will lead us away from our vocation.

 Something I really appreciated that Plantinga mentioned though, was that we cannot just have a Christian education and expect everything to work out. It will require time, energy, and a lot of hard work to achieve anything academically and spiritually. We cannot just swallow the information we are told. We need to decide for ourselves if we believe it so when we step out into the world, we are as prepared as we possibly can be. In addition to this, I also was thankful for Plantinga's mention that non-Christians can contribute to shalom. It is true that it is more an indirect action, or only half the story when they do this, but it is important to always remember that we are not better than anyone else, and God uses all people.
We have a great opportunity here at Calvin to learn in a great environment and have God show us the way to our vocation, all we have to do is listen and have responsible dominion over our kingdom.

The Inner Ring

Are cliques a good thing or a bad thing? If you look at what we are taught by our parents, the church, and usually our teachers, we are always taught that cliques are a bad thing. Regardless of their negative connotation cliques are everywhere. In fact, it is rather impossible not to be involved in one, and if you aren't in it then you are outside another. Cliques seem to dominate all of our lives, from all stages of schooling, to sports teams, to friends, to work, even in the church. C.S. Lewis says that cliques "[are] not only a bad thing, it is (in itself) a good thing, that personal friendship should grow up between those who work together." But Lewis' does not let inner rings end there, and for good reason. Although it is quite natural that we have cliques and that we have a natural affinity for those that we have similar interests with, that does not mean that what we do to form them is okay.

The greatest danger in an inner ring is the exclusion factor. "Exclusion is no accident; it is the essence." Lewis talks about how when we join an inner ring it is often a long and difficult journey for us, and after we have achieved our goal we generally make it just as difficult for incomers to get in simply because we had to struggle as well. It is a vicious cycle that has no end insight. Cliques get their worth from their exclusivity. This is not a good thing by any stretch of the imagination, but it is the reality. As we discussed this in class I was a little surprised at first at the idea of cliques in heaven. Upon further reflection though, it seems to make perfect sense. As I mentioned before, circles of friends are not inherently bad. If I love soccer it only makes sense that I will become close with those who share my love and we will spend time together playing soccer. On the other hand if you enjoy golf, we are less likely to spend a saturday afternoon together playing sports. The difference here is the intent. It is natural to spend time with those I am similar to, but we are not intentionally excluding people, in heaven anyone and everyone will be able to access these groups, they will have the choice. The other thing is that in heaven we will all have the unifier of worshiping God together, so we will always have one body that we are all apart of.
Something that was interesting to me when we were discussing this in our small groups was the idea of best friends and relationships in heaven. It seems to make sense that we have specific people who God made for us, or that we were made for. In either case we all feel a level of closeness to specific people that it seems no one else can match. But in Heaven will this feeling be across the board for everyone? We will all be living in loving community with one another praising God. But will we be like cells that all connect together but are their own piece, or one solidified group? I am no theologian and do not have the answers to these questions. But I thought it was a thought provoking question to consider.

Eros

I loved the reading that we had today on Eros. It was really insightful, thoughtful, and humorous. I could talk about a wide variety of the things that Lewis addresses, but I think a few of the things I found most profound was his belief that we shouldn't take sex too seriously, that our body is "Brother Ass", and that falling in love and being in love are two very different things.
To begin, Lewis says that it is vital that we do not take sex too seriously, and we cannot take it in the wrong sense of seriousness. This seems particularly insightful to me. In our culture sex is either considered taboo and shameful, or it is put on a pedestal and given privilege that it does not really deserve. On the one hand, it seems to me that the church is very restrained about talking about sex. In my youth group in high school, we did not ever once talk about sex. This past year there was one day that was designated for it. My friend told me that about 3 people out of our youth group of 35 went. Sex is so taboo. It is sort of that idea, out of sight out of mind. And this frankly cannot stand. If we treat sex so seriously that we cannot talk about it to teenagers, how will they ever learn what is moral? I think this becomes most apparent in college when we are given freedom. Calvin does a great job providing healthy boundaries. But consider a state school where there are no restrictions on open hours. A student who has never been talked to about sex will not know how to set healthy boundaries for their own safety. Conversely, we cannot take it to the extreme and make sex so serious that we see it above other aspects of life. I see this most in the media and in the way sex is portrayed in movies and television. Sex is represented as this ultimate desire. It is made to be the true shape of love and what we all want, and this frankly just isn't true. Sex was made to be a beautiful part of life, but we cannot say that it is the most important impulse. It needs to be controlled just as any other impulse. As with anything we need to find a healthy balance with sex, treating it with a sense of humor but seeing the gravity of it's consequences.
The second thing that I found so interesting is how Saint Francis referred to the body as Brother Ass. It is so fitting. I think we often take body image very seriously. It is why we work out, why we eat healthily, why we take care of ourselves. We want our bodies to represent physical health. But our bodies aren't the epitome of our being. They aren't even really that important. Our bodies don't have souls, we are souls that have bodies that are fleeting. That doesn't mean they don't have worth and we shouldn't take care of them. God calls our bodies temples, and we should treat them as such. But at the same time, we should not become obsessed with self-image.
Finally, I thought Lewis' analogy of falling in love with diving was really apt. When we fall in love it is like diving off the board to the water. When we are in love, it is being in the water when we no longer dive, we must swim. All throughout this time, we need our partner to dive with us and they must swim with us once we are swimming. I just really like this analogy because it makes so much sense to me. I was a swimmer all through high school so the analogy really applies. When you are at the starting blocks you take a hard strong dive, this momentum and push is the fastest you go the entire race, but of course it can't last. Once you are in the water, you stay in diving position as long as you can, but eventually you loose speed. You then have to start swimming or you will just float to the surface and stop. Swimming is a lot harder than diving, but it is just as important. You need to swim and to swim hard or you won't finish the race. In the same way, falling in love is the most exhilarating and fastest part of love. But then time passes and things slow down. You have to work to maintain the love. If you try to coast off of the initial love you will never make it. And being in love is much harder than falling in love. But it is the most important part, to keep going so that you can finish the race.

Redemption

"Everybody wants liberty. The problem is that everybody wants it on his own terms. But salvation doesn't work that way. God doesn't save people (from slaver, from addiction, from sin and shame) and then cut them loose to do what they want, because without the guidance of God 'doing what we want' is a recipe for falling right back into slavery."
When we think about redemption, we can see all the many things God is doing in us to bring us into shalom. There is a healing quality that is very present. But at the same time, we are still completely entrenched in our shortcomings. It seems like so much of what we want is not what God wants for us. We think we know best, we think we can achieve happiness and freedom by doing whatever we want. An ironic and tragic mistake, because the things that we think bring freedom really trap us. The freedom to use narcotics will in many cases lead you to an addiction that traps you. You no longer are free to use it, you are forced to use it. This example is applicable to many other examples. Over and over again, it seems that when we go our way we end up trapped and inflicting ourselves with detrimental tendencies. This is why we need to rely on God. We need His guidance so that we can be liberated truly.
Of course this is much easier said than done. It is easy to see the shortcomings in others, much harder to see them in ourselves. What is even harder is after we acknowledge our faults we must change them. And of course we will not succeed perfectly. We will fail, time after time. But God is redeeming this world, and He is bringing us closer to Him.
Through sanctification and justification, also known as double grace, God is giving us the ability to grow closer to Him. God justifies us, even though we do not deserve it. He forgives us of our sins and our faults. Beyond this, He sanctifies us, helping us grow closer to Him, bringing us out of these ruts and trenches we have dug ourselves into. We will never reach perfection while we live on this broken earth, but we can grow closer to God and see the power of His redemption if we move towards him. Nicholas Wolterstorff explains this process with two terms, our "authentic christian commitment" and our "actual christian commitment." Our authentic christian commitment put simply, is who God wants us to be. Our actual christian commitment is who we truly are. Our entire life is this process of bringing our actual christian commitment closer to our authentic christian commitment. As we get older and the more we grow the farther our authentic commitment goes, we can never catch it. But if at the end of our life we look back at the progression we made, day after day, month after month, year after year, we will be worlds apart from where we were. This is sanctification, in this world. In Heaven we will be able to achieve this completely. But for now it is a clear way to see just how God is redeeming us and creation in the present.

Learning in War-Time

When the world is at war, it feels as if our sits on the edge of a knife. any slip one way or the other and we seem doomed to fall. During these times, it seems imperative that we put all full effort into our preservation. Scholarly pursuits should be put to the side, taken up again after our safety is reclaimed, right? Not according to C.S. Lewis. "The war creates no absolutely new situation: it simply aggravates the permanent human situation so that we can no longer ignore it. Human life has always been lived on the edge of a precipice." It seems that war is not really that different from every day life, it just brings out the more vibrant extremes. "Life has never been normal. Even those periods which we consider most tranquil...turn out, on closer inspection, to be full of cries, alarms, difficulties, emergencies." There is never going to be a time that all conditions are perfect, that we can fully run after knowledge and beauty without a worry in the world. It just won't happen. This means that we must take advantage of what we have now. Education and higher learning is not a waste of time, or counterproductive, even in a time of war. Yes, we need brave soldiers to dedicate themselves to the cause to protect our nation. But as Lewis says, "a man may have to die for our country: but no must, in any exclusive sense, live for his country." There is a difference between defending our nations freedom and dedicating ones entire life to the service of his country. Patriotism is a great thing, but it cannot be the only thing. We need scholars, artists, businessmen, craftsman, inventors, and countless others. All aspects of life are important and need to be treated as such. 

The other interesting point to mention is, when these lives are passing, but have a lasting impact on our immortal souls, "How can you be so frivolous and selfish as to think of anything but the salvation of human souls?"As Lewis expands upon this idea, he talks about the idea of duty. It seems like all our Christian life should be full of duty. This does not mean that we must all become priests and missionaries. Rather, we should integrate our faith and duty into our everyday life, in whatever our calling may be.

As I read the end of Lewis' work when he discusses the three enemies of war I found something that didn't feel quite right. Lewis' three enemies are; excitement, frustration, and fear. I have no qualms with these ideas, in fact, I think Lewis is right in this regard. However, as he was talking about fear it seemed odd to me how he described it. I agree with much of what he said, but I thought he left out some important details. Yes, we will all die. It is a fact that we cannot refute or change. So no, war does not make the number of death percentages increase. But, I think this is a hasty assumption. It is not the fact that they die, it is when they die. A man who dies at 20 serving his country is robbed of the potential to live a long and prosperous life. His potential is taken from him. That is what is scary. And beyond this, it seems that if we kill thousands of people in war, we are cutting off the ability to bring more lives into existence. Yes, they will die one day as well. But they will be new life that, had their parents died at war, would never have been alive. War cuts off possibilities. The people fighting at war all have the potential to do great things in their lives, and just simply enjoy the things God has given them. I think that is why war is scary, and I was surprised that Lewis seemingly brushed over this without a second thought. This doesn't mean that Lewis' overarching points were wrong, even his discussion of fear for that matter. But I just felt like he didn't really cover all the ground that he should have.

The lamp to my feet and a light for my path

As I was reading "The Wonder of Learning" I was really struck by the analogy of the light. It explained the relationship between the Word and the world so well. When you are walking down a dark path you need a flashlight to provide some sort of light, otherwise you could not see in front of you and you would surely stumble and hurt yourself. But when you are walking on this path you do not stare directly at the light. If you did, everything else would be eclipsed and mobility would be even more blind then before. You must use the light, pointing it in front of you, illuminating your path. The light will make your path clear, giving you the ability to traverse the various cracks and stumbling points successfully. This can be compared to the Bible and how it gives us light on our paths of life. Life is a dark and dangerous path, we need light to help us get through, pointing out the dangers and providing sight. But we cannot only look to the Bible. We have to look at our path ahead of us. If all we do is focus on the Bible we become blind to our peripheries. This is an incredible insight in my opinion. We tend to look at this two polar ends, the world and the word. But it is our job to integrate the two, to look at the world through the lens of the word.
When Marshall first said that the Bible could not tell us everything we needed to know I was taken aback. It seemed counterintuitive to think that God had not provided us with everything we needed. But that is not what he means. God did not leave us empty handed. He gave us the outline for us to follow, but because we are all different we have our own path to follow. Even still I did not fully understand why we would not use God's word for all our problems. In all my Christian life it has been stressed to me over and over the importance of the Bible, God's revelation to us. But then Marshall makes his point clear when he explains the analogy with basketball. There are rules that define the objective and what you can and can't do in the game, but this does not define all the intricacies of how the game will be played. You can know all the technical rules, but that will not make you the greatest basketball player. You have to know how to play in those rules. The Bible is our rule book. It is our answers to how we should live life and what we can and can't do. But it does not tell us how live every moment out, that is for us and our free will to decide.
It is so important for us to integrate our faith with our life. We cannot see our every day experiences and God as two separate entities. God cannot be contained to Sunday morning! Or to youth group, or bible study, or a retreat. God should fill our lives. We need him to light our path, so that we make it through life without constantly stumbling and falling in futility.

The Poison of Subjectivism

When you consider the history of the world and how things of changed, you generally consider it progress. We have been advancing to some higher truth, a better understanding of the universe and ourselves. In this pursuit we have in recent years almost quickly eliminated all worth in judgment. The modern view, "does not believe that value judgements are really judgements at all. They are sentiments, or complexes, or attitudes, produces in a community by the pressure of its environment and its traditions, and differing from one community to another." But is this really true? C.S. Lewis maintains that we are more similar than we think and there is a danger in labeling everything as subjective because the very platform they stand on can be attacked in just the same way. Subjectivism holds no bounds and can drag any argument into the depths. Which is why Lewis says, "we have only two alternatives. Either the maxims of traditional morality must be accepted as axioms of practical reason which neither admit nor require argument to support them and not to "see" which is to have lost human status; or else there are no values at all, what we mistook for values being "projections" or irrational emotions."
Something I thought was very interesting in all of this was the idea that even though we think we have made great shifts in our thinking, we really are just the same. The first good example of this is Lewis describing the modern man who tries to reinterpret morality and how we should act. "We must abandon the irrational taboos and base our values on the good of the community - as if the maxim - thou shalt promote the good of the community were anything more than a polysyllabic variant of, do as you would be done by, which has itself no other basis than the old universal value judgement that he claims to be rejecting." It seems so obvious when Lewis states it-but isn't it exactly what gets said? We try to ignore the moral law and create this new idea, when it is a direct derivative of the moral law. Lewis takes this even farther and says that there are two propositions that we must know. "1) The human mind has no more power of inventing a new value than of planting a new sun in the sky or a new primary colour in the spectrum. 2) Every attempt to do so consists in arbitrarily selecting some one maxim of traditional morality, isolating it from the rest, and erecting it into an unum necessarium."
We like to think of ourselves as incredibly different, but we really aren't. There are many different words, terms and traditions between cultures. But if you look at the root of it all, the base structures upon which most things are built, there is a resounding resemblance. "If a man will go into a library and spend a few days with the encyclopedia of religion and ethics he will soon discover the massive unanimity of the practical reason in man." There are cultures which vary greatly from ourselves, but the morals are not that different. Consider the ancient Mayans to ourselves. They had human sacrifices, something we would consider abominable. But why did they have them? They were for the good of the people, to help everyone else prosper and flourish. It was a sacrifice to benefit the whole. Something that we would consider noble. Now we know that human sacrifices will not bring us good crops or peace, so we do not practice it. But we certainly call for sacrifice. Taxes are a sacrifice to help our country stay strong. Or we sacrifice soldiers in war to protect the nation. They are different situations in different settings definitely. But aren't the very core concepts behind them still the same? We have not come as far as we think. We are subjective creatures and always will be. By doubting everything we know through subjectivism, we are only closing all knowledge off from ourselves.

The Fall

There is no doubt that we are living in a broken world. Just look around. I really don't have to go too far to prove that there is something seriously wrong. Violence between nations, religious groups, neighbors, even in families. Lying, corruption, and deceit are common place in the workplace. Even the natural world is full of pain and darkness, from natural disasters to the food chain that treats many animals as nothing more than food. And I think that almost all of us look at this and see that this isn't right. That somehow we have gone astray. Evil has corrupted us and mired us in sin. Plantinga does a great job of talking about God's world and how it has fallen into this through sin, yet seeing God's work still at hand and the hope that is lies therein. "The glory of God's good creation has not been obliterated by the tragedy of the fall, but it has been deeply shadowed by it."
As I read this chapter, I could not help but question where this evil comes from. It seems to make sense that evil is not something that can stand on it's own. It is a manipulation and corruption of good. But this brings up the question, where did that come from? It seems to be a "chicken-egg" situation, where there is an endless cycle. But why is there evil at all? In my philosophy class we read a piece by an atheist philosopher, Mackie, who tried to disprove the existence of God because evil existed in the world. It was a really interesting piece of work that asked good questions and brought up many good answers that I think really relates to what Plantinga talks about in this chapter.
Mackie starts with three basic premises that an theist would agree to. 1) God is omnipotent. (all powerful) 2) God is wholly good. (Good in this sense is the opposition to evil, where good tries to eliminate evil as much as it possibly can) 3) Evil exists. These would be a given to any Christian who believes in God. But when you look at it, there is a contradiction. If God is completely good and all powerful, He would eliminate evil to the best of His ability-which is to say, completely. It seems like in order to maintain this idea you are forced to drop one of the three premises as true. Evil cannot be eliminated since it is beyond argument that our world is covered in it. Mackie says then, that we must either abandon that God is all powerful, or that He is wholly good. Of course, no true Christian would abandon these two core fundamentals.
This leads to the arguments in response to Mackie that He addresses in his paper. The first few are easily eliminated as weak arguments so I will skip them. The best argument from all this is called "The free will argument." Consider if you could live on an island away from all sorts of trials and tribulations. This is called a First Order Good. You are always content. Sure, it sounds like paradise and I am sure that for a time it would be very enjoyable. But after a while wouldn't you get bored? After a while doesn't it start to get old? Yeah, you are relaxed, but does it feel as good if you don't work for it? This is where First Order Evil comes into play. This is any sort of suffering or pain. Now, when you have First Order Evil it neutralizes First Order Good, but it allows for many noble attributes known as Second Order Goods. Loyalty, courage, bravery, trust, honesty-all these traits need some sort of challenge against them to be tested, and when they succeed the victory feels that much better. But, there is a problem. With Second Order Goods come Second Order Evils. Cruelty, unfaithfulness, lying, cheating, cowardice, etc are all just as common as any noble attribute of good. It would seem that the field is level again. However, this is where the free will argument takes its hold. God could make us so that we only did good, so that we only followed his ways, but there wouldn't be much satisfaction in that. We would be robots, programmed with only one decision. God gives us free will to choose what we do, which is the Third Order Good, this trumps all evil-first and second.
I thought of this when reading because Plantinga asks the question, "where does evil come from?" It is impossible that evil originates from God, and the Devil is powerful but nowhere near as powerful as Jesus. I am no theologist, and I would hardly say I have the answers to the worlds most sought after questions. But from the reading and the philosophy work that came up, I thought it was fascinating to see some of the ideas behind it. That God is all powerful, so He has the full potential to use evil. But He is wholly good and it is against His nature to use this power. But evil exists in our world. But it is because God gives us the choice to follow Him, to have the same decisions of doing good or doing evil, to love Him, because we love Him. Not because He told us to. We have fallen short of that in every possible scale and we are surrounded by sin and evil. But God is working to redeem us and this world, to bring us to unity with Him, but it is our choice whether or not we will follow.

The Moral Law---Mere Christianity

Why do we feel that pang of guilt when we take something we know isn't ours? Why do we get offended when someone cheats on a test, or in sports, and gets away with it? Time and time again we say, "it isn't fair!" What defines if something is fair or not? It seems that to a large degree there is a universal code that we all adhere to. It is true that we often choose to ignore this code if it is inconvenient to us. But consider any time you have been wronged, you immediately jump back to the assumption that the other person broke an unspoken rule. It seems peculiar that we have this aspect in us. Even odder still that we have the power to overrule it. When we talk about the law of nature in reference to that of a rock or tree it seems silly to suggest that they ever perform uncharacteristically. A rock will always serve the purpose that a rock does. Trees will always grow as trees. Their environment can change certain aspects, but not in a way that one would not expect. They are always consistent in their behavior. So why then, do humans feel a code inside them that we also have the power to overrule?
Lewis believes that this code comes from a transcendent moral rule, known as the Law of Nature. "The idea was, that just as all bodies are governed by the law of gravitation, and organisms by biological laws, so the creature called man also had his law--with this great difference, that a body could not choose whether it obeyed the law of gravitation or not, but a man could choose either to obey the Law of Human Nature or to disobey it." It is called the Law of Nature because it seems to be a universal trait. To be clear, there are some people in the world who do not follow this law-just as there are people in the world who are colorblind. Not to mention the variations across cultures and time. However the differences are not as great as they first seem. There are definitely significant shifts depending on the culture and time, but the core concepts are generally the same, just altered in one way or another. You would be hard pressed to find a society that values cowardice, or has no sense of justice (though it may come in a different form) There can be many altercations to the basic ideas, but the core concepts can be found.
There are many objections to Lewis argument, and he takes his time in answering each. The one that I found most interesting was the concept of instinct. There are two basic desires that contribute in our decision to help people. The first is our herd instinct-trying to preserve the group. The second is our self-preservation instinct-trying to maintain our own safety. When a situation occurs that a person needs help both of these instincts kick in and battle for control of the decision.  "In addition to these two impulses, a third thing which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run away."  Since this thing judges the two instincts, and decides which should be encouraged, it cannot be either one of these two instincts. "The Moral Law tells us the tune we have to play: our instincts are merely the keys."
I really loved Lewis' analogy of the piano when he discussed instincts-particularly that there are no right and wrong instincts, just as there are no right or wrong notes. There is just an appropriate time, and an inappropriate time for each. This seems like an obvious statement because of the beauty of it's analogy but think of many of the instincts we look at as reproachful, or as healthy. All can be used for good and for evil. The instinct for sex is a great thing, in the right setting. The instinct to seek justice can be led astray into cruelty if not properly tempered. All things in moderation (except praising God.) We need the Moral Law to guide us and to tell us when to use each instinct, if not we are walking blind.

The Safest Road to Hell

"Indeed the safest road to Hell is the gradual one-the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts."I remember the first time that I read this letter. The chills that ran down my spine then are just as vivid now as they were then. This is one of the most haunting lines in any literary piece I have ever read. The truth in this statement is what gives it, it's blood chilling effect. Indeed, the entire Screwtape collection is full of very insightful ideas and comments on human behavior. But this chapter in particular, Letter 12, is one of his most prolific in my opinion.
I think the reason I have such a strong connection to this chapter is because I have seen it happen in my own life. It is so easy to become complacent with our situation. At least for me, I often tell myself that I am fine where I am. But it is in this sense of  satisfaction that we are most vulnerable. Our journey towards God never ends, and there is no way to stay at a flat level. Our faith either grows or it dwindles. The shifts do not have to be dramatic, in fact in the letters Screwtape suggests that the best method of bringing humans to Hell is through the slow path with few disturbances.
One of the biggest parts of this danger is what we surround ourselves with. This involves people, activities, and what we expose ourselves to. There are clear examples of this with people and activities. Community is one of the most important aspects of our faith-we need other people if we are to grow closer to God. But this means that we need people who want the same things that we want. The image my mother always told me, was imagine yourself on a rowing team. If you are rowing towards God but the other members of the crew are rowing towards other things then you will have a difficult if not impossible time making it to your goal.
 Activities are also pretty self explanatory. Actions speak louder than words. To be a Christian you have to live like a Christian. You cannot be considered a basketball player if you do not play basketball. To take the sports analogy further, imagine you are on the basketball team. If you are training for the state finals, are you going to practice drills or are you going to go eat junk food? Our actions and practices will be obvious in the final result, therefore we must diligently look to watch over our actions.
The final aspect, what we expose ourselves to is perhaps one of the trickiest to discern. Consider the things we are exposed to, music, movies, television, posters, the internet, books, magazines, newspapers, and many more. What are the messages that these things send us? And how do we respond to hearing, seeing, or reading them? And how do we decipher which are bad and which are good? Just because some TV shows are not morally sound does not mean that all TV is inherently bad. But how do we stay conscious of what is leading us down a dark path? There are only two answers I can think of. The first, is prayer. Ask for God's guidance. We cannot let the dim uneasiness draw us away from Him, we must stand before Him and let him pour light into our world to see just where we are. The second thing we can do relates to one of the other aspects. If we have surrounded ourselves with a strong fellowship of friends to support us, we can talk to them for their judgment. God can speak through them to us and together we can hold each other to accountability.

One caution I would give in all of this though, is not to remove ourselves from society completely. Rather, let us use our discernment to help bring renewal to the world. Just because I know my friend isn't a Christian does not mean I abandon my friendship. No! Instead, we show them God's love in our actions and if they are ever willing to hear we help try to bring them into the crew team with us. But you do not make them your source of reliance and dependency when it comes to your faith. Similarly, we should not pretend that our media is rampant with sex as well as other problems. We cannot close our eyes to it and make it go away. However we can work to change the current state of things. We must be in the world but not of the world. God's love and redemption is for everyone, so let us share it with them. While always staying alert that we do not slip down the path without milestones or signposts.

Creation

"The agent of redemption is also the agent of creation." Often times I struggle with the idea of the Trinity. One God of three equal pieces working in communion together. Regardless of my inability to envision the infinite since I am a finite being, I think Plantinga makes a great point. I tend to encapsulate each figure in the Trinity to a specific area. However, this is clearly not the case. It is a central idea to know that Jesus Christ always was and always will be. He was not "made" by God to redeem the world. He was there in the beginning of time, bringing the world into existence--not a part of God that was made to forgive us of our sins. I do not mean to say that Jesus did not work as an agent of renewal, he is the reason for our salvation. I just mean to say that he is also more than that.

Another concept that I have often struggled with is why God created the world. Certainly he made it out of his infinite love, but he is an all powerful lord of the universe, creatures such as ourselves seem superfluous to Him. And in reality, we really are superfluous. As Plantinga said, "nothing internal or external to God compelled him to create." We were not a necessity. On the other hand we are not a random accident. We are not the product of an act of carelessness. We seem to be caught in two worlds, not necessary for God but not an unintentional accident. Plantinga goes on to say that "creation is an act that was fitting for God."This is an interesting idea to me. It seems difficult for me to say that we can label God and say what is fitting for Him. But certainly we do know some things about Him. God has revealed himself to us in general and special revelations. God has given us a basic understanding of Himself through these revelations. What I do know about God in my limited understanding is that he is a God of immense love. The creation process is one of "imaginative love." I love the quote from G.K. Chesterton, "the whole difference between construction and creation is...that a ting constructed can only be loved after is is constructed; but a thing created is loved before it exists." At first I did not understand this quote, and then I thought of an example: you construct a house. You draw up blueprints and you build the house, but during this process you don't truly love the house. You can love the idea of the house but only once it is created and it becomes a home can you feel any real affection towards it. On the other hand, you create a child. Being a man and never experiencing childbirth I am no expert, but I have to speculate from the moment that you know you have that piece of life in you, you love your child. It is a created part of you that you are intrinsically attached to in a way that I struggle to find words for. This is the image that I get when I think of God creating us. We often think of ourselves as God's children, and it is an apt analogy since He is the one who created us.

In creation we were made in Gods image. This is a mind blowing concept in my opinion. To know that the creator of the universe found you and me important enough to make in His own image, is incomprehensible to me at times. Plantinga suggests that there are three things that put us in God's image. First, we are given stewardship over the earth. An incredible responsibility. We are given a huge sum of power, and it is our duty to take this power and empower those around us, humans, animals, and the planet. The second aspect is that we are made to be in "loving communion with each other." As I mentioned earlier there is the concept of the Trinity living in unity together, and we are made to replicate that as best we can with our relationships with one another and with God. Finally, "we image God by conforming to Jesus Christ in suffering and death."
With our special role in God's creation we are all made with a calling to bring renewal to God's world. This can be done in a multitude of ways, all that matters is that we get started.

The Weight of Glory

"Our Lord fins 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 and 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."
As a child I remember how easily placated I was with the simplest of activities. One obvious example of this is when I was a child, I was much happier with a bowl of candy then a steak dinner. I didn't realize that I was giving up a delicacy and a treat for the sake of something that wasn't that great and was actually bad for me. Although this analogy isn't totally universal, it serves its purpose. As children we are generally complacent with our situation even if there is something far greater within our grasp. As we grow old we tend to think that we have sorted out our issues and we are now wise. We know what we truly want and what will make us happy. Unfortunately we are just as blind as we were as children. As Lewis said, "we are far too easily pleased."It is true that things like alcohol and sex (in the right context) are wonderful things that God gave us, but they are not what we truly want. There is "infinite joy" that all we have to do is accept, but we are too blind to see this most of the time.
One of the redemptive qualities in this is what Lewis says later: "Now, if we are made for heaven, the desire for our proper place will be already in us, but not yet attached to the true object, and will even appear as the rival of that object." This gives us hope for our childish misgivings and inattention to our true calling. However, this is not a "get out of jail free card." There are many things that are dangerous to devote our attention to. We cannot idolize false gods, devoting our love to things that will not last. Conversely, it does not mean that the thing itself is evil. These things-the beauty, the memory of our past-are good images of what we really desire; but if they are mistaken for the thing itself they turn into dumb idols, breaking the hearts of their worshippers. For they are not the thing itself; they are only the scent of a flower we have not found." An example of this can be seen in nature. God calls us to have reverence for nature, but we should not see nature as God. We can see the beauty of nature as a reflection of God's magnificence, but we should not confuse it with God.

Another part of this essay that I found insightful was Lewis statement about how we need to focus on religion, especially to the areas that we don't fully understand. "If our religion is something objective, then we must never avert our eyes from those elements in it which seem puzzling or repellent; for it will be precisely the puzzling or the repellent which conceals what we do not yet know and need to know." I think we as a culture have gotten to accustomed to ignoring things we find difficult. It is much easier to never discuss predestination then it is to earnestly discuss it. It is particularly frustrating since we are finite beings and there is no way for us to comprehend all the intricacies of infinity and an omnipotent God. But this does not mean we should simply be complacent with what we are told. God wants us to question, He designed us with a longing for Him, to better understand Him with are long search. Another example of this is something like gay marriage. I do not want to pull in any argument for one side or the other in regards to this topic. But what I will say, is that it seems easy to ignore the problem and say "out of sight out of mind." I think it is really important for us to engage in discussion and to address issues, openly and honestly. Again, it might be the case that we do not find an answer, but we cannot ignore issues just because they are puzzling or repellent.

The final part of this article that I want to address in this blog was the idea of glory that we each receive and how we can support and help each other in our personal journeys. The first thing that Lewis talks about is the completely altered definition of glory. It is neither the fame we associate with celebrities in some sort of hierarchy, nor the luminosity of a lightbulb or star. Rather, it is the idea that God acknowledges us, and He tells us that He is pleased with what we have done. The highest accolade we could  ever receive. I love the idea that Lewis suggests that, "Perfect humility dispenses with modesty." It seems counterintuitive at first until you consider the idea a little deeper. If we are perfectly humble, and we truly understand that our lives, our being comes from God and we can do nothing without him, then why should we be modest? We should delight in the achievements that God has given us with Him. We should praise him to the fullest because when humble, we understand that our achievements were not completed by us alone, but through God.
The next stage of this glory comes through our ability to help others and bring them along with us. We need to affirm them while still making sure we hold them to the same standards we want them to hold us to. This part of our journey is so important because "next to the Blessed Sacrament itself, your neighbor is the holiest object presented to your senses." All of our souls are immortal, and the gravity of that situation demands respect. This does not mean we cannot have fun and enjoy ourselves. But we cannot take lightly the harming of one of these souls. We have a large effect on those around us and we need to be cognizant of that. "All day long we are, in some degree, helping each other to one or other of these destinations." Our neighbors can become "immortal horrors or everlasting splendors." This is just another reason why there is a weight attached to glory.

Our English Syllabus: Socialization versus Individualization

In his work "Our English Syllabus" C.S. Lewis approaches education and the learning process from a very critical angle. He is highly critical of vocational training and even goes so far as to say "education is essentially for freemen and vocational training for slaves." This is a rather bold statement to make, especially when you look at the way our society values education. Specificity and focus in a field tend to help you achieve a higher status in that particular job. Even at Calvin College there are engineering and nursing programs designed to give the students a focused education in a specific field. That said, Calvin also requires some core classes designed to stretch the students minds and broaden their horizon. However, Calvin is the exception and not the rule when it comes to this approach. Regardless of our societies view on learning, I am inclined to agree with Lewis. That education and the pursuit of knowledge is far greater than any one subject of learning.
Something I found interesting in this piece was it's similarity to another paper I had read a while back by a philosopher named Richard Rorty. In Rorty's work he discusses education in two forms, socialization and individualization. Socialization is the process of education that takes place from kindergarten through 12th grade. During this process we learn all the basic rules of society. We learn customs, cultural roles, and basic information that then prepares us for our next stage of life, individualization. Individualization then takes place in college, or in "the school of life" --depending on life choices-- where we learn to question the society around us and pursue the knowledge that we love most. This combination tactic provides a powerful arsenal of information to the lover of wisdom. I think that Lewis would agree with this for several reasons. The first just being the fact that his essay seems most focused towards college students then anyone younger. Second, Lewis says that "a perfect study of anything requires a knowledge about everything." And third, when Lewis speaks of higher education he describes them as "homes not for teaching but for the pursuit of knowledge." An idea that is addressed through the dual approach of socialization and individualization. It is true that we cannot learn everything there is to know, and I would agree completely that we should focus on what we love, but we need to have a basis to begin with so that we can pursue wisdom with guidance rather than a wild chase with no real idea where we are going.
Think about selecting your classes for the Spring semester. Yes, there were some core classes you had to pick and probably a class that you needed for your major you would have otherwise passed on. But, how did you pick the majority of your other classes? We need the process of socialization so we learn what lights a fire inside of us. On the board today under the questions it said "Vocation vs. Education vs. My calling/ability." It seems to me that we discover our calling and our ability through the socialization process. We go through trial and error until we find our passion. Then we follow that knowledge during the education process. "The proper question for a freshman is not "what will do me most good?" but "what do I most want to know?" From this process we can then pursue our vocation-the deep calling in our life for the purpose that God has for us.
The final thought I have on this is from the last page of Lewis' piece when he says "How do you know that in that very river which I would exclude as poisonous the fish you specially want, the undiscovered fish, is waiting? And you would never find it if you let us select. Our selection would be an effort to bind the future within our present knowledge and taste: nothing more could come out than we had put in." This in my opinion is the strongest argument for why the individualization process is so important. C.S. Lewis explains that "one of the most dangerous errors instilled into us by nineteenth-century progressive optimism is the idea that civilization is automatically bound to increase and spread." This is certainly true, it is naive to think that we are guaranteed to always progress in the right direction, or that we have found the perfect place where we are now. We will always need people cutting against the grain, doing things that they find interesting, always searching deeper and questioning things around them. Without the individualization process we would become stagnant and our society would never progress, or even worse without someone to question what we do we would regress. With that said, we do need the socialization process to teach children what the world they live in is like. We cannot have 5 year old anarchists protesting against their bedtimes because they question everything. But there comes a time, when maturity and mental cognition are complete that we should find our own calling and learn about what we have a passion for, so that we can question society and discover knowledge that no one had looked for before.

The Logical Song Might Not be Too Logical

The line that I cannot forget from "The Logical Song" is the repeated phrase, "won't you please, please tell me what we've learned?"I found this quote really interesting and I think it is an integral part of the message that the artist is trying to get across. Throughout this song the main message seems to be a questioning of how society alters us and makes us "grow up." Hodgson is of the opinion that life was infinitely better when he was younger, and as he has grown up he has become more logical and responsible but also more cynical.
In our society we put a lot of value into youth. This is most commonly seen in our beauty products that urge us to look "ten years younger instantly" but it is also not unusual to see people longing for their playful childhood attitude. These days we often see responsibility and adult duties being pushed off as long as possible, people not fully stepping into them till their late 20s usually. It is even common among people of our age group to reminisce about the simplicities of childhood. We do this with good reason, even the Bible stresses the importance of children. 
"And they were bringing children to him that he might touch them, and the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant and said to them, “Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.” And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands on them." (Mark 10:13-16 ESV)
However despite the beauty of childhood I think there is a grave misconception in our society. Imagination, a sense of wonder, playfulness, joy-these are all magnificent traits that we should always keep with us. But I see no reason why we cannot hold onto them in the later years of our life. True as we get older things become more difficult, we face realities and we develop both mentally and physically. But growing up is a natural thing that occurs to all of us. And trying to hold on to a reality where this is not the case is just silly. God created us to age, to gain wisdom so that we can bring up future generations in a better world that is closer to renewal with God. There is nothing wrong with growing old. It is the natural order of things that God made for us.
"I have cared for you since you were born. Yes, I carried you before you were born. I will be your God throughout your lifetime – until your hair is white with age. I made you, and I will care for you. I will carry you along and save you.”  (Isaiah 46:3-4)
It is true that it is very easy to fall prey to the woes of society and become cynical, a criminal, or a vegetable. But it is not guaranteed. All of life is beautiful. God made us to enjoy each day and not look back with regrets. It is true we cannot live a perfect life, but that doesn't mean we can't live life to the fullest and enjoy each stage of it.

We Have No "Right to Happiness"

Lewis proposes a countercultural idea, that we actually have no 'right to happiness.' At first when I read this I was a little taken aback. It seemed like such a malicious idea, that we had no right to happiness. In fact, when I first read the essay I was determined to find a problem in it. After reading it several times though, I believe that I understand his point and have to agree that we really don't have any right to happiness.
The right to happiness in the basic sense is that we are each entitled to our own personal freedoms that make us happiest as long as they do not infringe on other's happiness. So for example, if I am happiest listening to music in my room, then I have a right to do so. But if I am happiest killing people, well then obviously I have no right to do this because it invades other's happiness. The question that immediately came to mind at this juncture was, "where is the line drawn?" Is Mr. A's happiness in remarrying justifiable when it results in the suicide of his wife? His decision infringed on her pursuit of happiness, but arguably was it all his fault? Marriages end for a number of reasons, and if it truly wasn't working perhaps it was for the best. Perhaps. But Lewis addresses the issue when he says that 'happiness' is really only 'sexual happiness.' The fictional personification of culture Clare really only uses happiness when describing sexual happiness. She would not encourage the cruel tactics of a tycoon who hurt people to get money. And certainly would not promote alcoholism because it made the man happier when he was drunk.

The paragraph that I found most interesting was the one explaining our impulses. I have heard this argument before, that sexual desires are a natural impulse and should be treated as any such impulse and get a response. Lewis dispels this excellently with his explanation that we do not give in to every impulse. I do not eat compulsively when I am hungry. I sleep, but not when I am doing something important. (Lewis uses the example of a sentry) With this logic in place it seems irrational to give sex a place of honor where it is given special privilege over all other impulses.

Lewis says, "absolute obedience to your instinct for self-preservation is what we call cowardice, to your acquisitive, impulse, avarice." I could not agree with him more. In my philosophy class last semester we did a section on spiritual disciplines in which we discussed Plato's metaphor of the charioteer. The basic idea of this metaphor is that there are three parts to the soul. The charioteer is the analytical, thoughtful driving who needs to be in control of the chariot to keep it on track. Then there are two steeds. The first is the Appetitive Steed which could be described as the impulse steed. It is our natural desires for sleep, food, mating and a variety of other desires. The second is the Spirit Steed, our courage and conviction. Plato says that in order to be truly autonomous we need to keep the Charioteer in control at all times. It is not that the steeds themselves are evil, but if left unchecked they will run wild and control us instead of us controlling them. They will dominate our choices because we will be slaves to desires and foolhardy passion. I believe this is what Lewis is saying when he says that obedience to instinct is cowardice. When we let our impulse dominate our life we are being too cowardly to control ourselves.

Longing and Hope

In all of our lives we have longings and hopes. The degree of that longing varies from person to person as well as the nature of the desire. But one thing is certain, hope and longing is ingrained in our being. C.S. Lewis describes this experience with the German word, Sehnsucht, the deep seeking and searching of “union with something from which we are separated.” We long for reunion with a past place, person, or experience. “We keep wanting to get back or go to get in.”

I think most important part of this is that these deep longings are unfulfillable.  No matter how much we long for it, we cannot become one with the music we are listening to.  We cannot fully integrate ourselves into nature. We cannot enter perfect solidarity with our loved ones no matter the relationship. This is not to say that these things aren’t great blessings from God. They are magnificent parts of life. But no matter how close to perfect they are, there will always be a longing inside of us because they cannot be fully complete.  As much as we hate to admit it, in our earthly world, time changes all things. People change, places change, and we change. The analogy the Plantinga made of coming home for Christmas break after the first semester of school was incredibly true. I saw myself as a different person when I was home again. Clearly not everything had changed, but my relation to many of my friends was different. This isn’t a bad thing, but it is true that we will never be the same as we once were.

The fact of the matter is that we cannot achieve our longings completely in this world, as Tolkein explains it we long for something that is “beyond the walls of the world.” We all have longings and desires that we cannot fulfill because our true longing is for God. Saint Augustine explains it by saying, “you have made us for yourself, and our heart is restless until it rests in you.” God has created us to be in unity with him, that is what our heart truly desires. We draw this attention away towards other things. It is important to note that many of these things aren’t wrong, or inherently wrong. The desire of love with others is a beautiful thing, but we also desire what lies behind that love, which is God.

Plantinga then talks about the three ingredients necessary for hope; imagination, faith, and desire. To truly hope for something you must incorporate all three aspects.  As Christians  it is our duty to hope for and search for the righteousness of God.  This is a trickier goal then it sounds. As finite human beings we do not inherently know what is righteous and worth following. It is vital for us to use discernment through the lens of scripture and deep prayer, otherwise we can very easily follow our own personal desires while thinking we are doing God’s work. One point I thought was interesting in all of this was Plantinga’s advice to be careful when trying to have empathy with those you are in contention with. Hope varies for different people and we need to be aware of that. Otherwise we can fall prey to Bulverism.

During his section on Shalom Plantinga says something that I found very profound. “Faith without works is dead (James 2:17), and the same goes for hope.” I found this idea incredibly insightful, and it reminded me of another quote from Dr. Cornel West. "Yet hope is no guarantee. Real hope is grounded in a particularly messy struggle and it can be betrayed by naive projections of a better future that ignore the necessity of doing the real work." Too often we hope for renewal in our world but we don't want to act to make our hope a reality. It is true that we cannot reach perfect unity with our Sehnsucht in this world with the majority of our desires. But our longing and search for shalom with God can be answered by God. The example that Plantinga uses is that of Martin Luther King Jr. whose hope and longing of racial equality brought change to all of our lives.
We all have a deep longing for shalom with God, He is waiting for us all we have to do is go to Him. As Saint Augustine said, "late have I loved you, beauty so old and so new: late have I loved you... You were with me, and I was not with you."

"Bulverism"

C.S. Lewis describes the term "Bulverism" by referencing its imaginary creator, Ezekiel Bulver. A small child who at the age of five overheard his parents having an argument. His mother made a decisive move when she exclaimed, "Oh, you say that because you are a man." Bulver realized the power in this and explained, "there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume your opponent is wrong, and then explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall."Of course Bulver is a fictional character that Lewis created to better illustrate his point, however the basic idea of Bulverism still remains. It is most simply defined as refuting an argument by assuming they are wrong without proving that they are wrong. By explaining why he is wrong without showing that he is in fact wrong one can Bulverize an opponent and change the focus of the argument.

It is important to note that Bulverism is available to everyone. "For Bulverism is a truly democratic game in the sense that all can play it all day long, and that it give no unfair advantage to the small and offensive minority who reason." For example, the attacks used against Christianity can all be turned around and used in reverse against the "modern man."This is rather useless though, because it does not bring us any closer to the truth. Saying why Christianity was spread, or why the modern man wants to dispel God does not actually answer whether or not Christianity is true or false.

Lewis adamantly despises Bulverism, and wants to eradicate it. He says, "until Bulverism is crushed, reason can play no effective part in human affairs." Bulverism allows you to win an argument, but not to prove a point infallibly. Because Bulverism is universal it can be turned against you and your stance can be destroyed, followed by their point being attacked. This cycle can go on and on until you reach the point of trying to prove that all proofs are invalid, which is in and of itself, an oxymoron-and impossible.

This piece is particularly striking because of the relevance it still holds today. Lewis talks about Bulver's work spreading "almost everywhere" during the 1940s. It is my conjecture that it has only grown since then. One of the most prominent examples of this can be seen in politics today. Our dichotomous political parties have grown to be such distinct enemies of one another that we rarely see a campaign that promotes what the candidate will do to make things better. Instead there is a slur of hatred and rumors that "destroys" the oppositions legitimacy. It is common to hear why Democrats or Republicans are wrong, but rare, much more rare to show why their ideologies are wrong. I thought it was funny that this came up because it reminded me of a part of the speech we heard yesterday, where Mr. Bytwork was discussing the controversy of President Bush attending Calvin. He said something that was a passing comment, a joke even, saying that the professor who was protesting Bush was a brilliant woman in English but was wrong on this subject. The comment was not inherently mean-spirited or malicious. However, it is a perfect example of how Bulverism has become so ingrained into our society that it can be said without a second thought.

This leads me to my next point, of how common Bulverism is that we use it every day with one another. It is tragic to see how often we disagree with friends and family, and rather than discuss it and find an answer logically we argue and use fallacious arguments to prove a point. I know I am just as guilty of it as anyone else. I do it without even realizing it often times. This cannot stand any longer.

In class we discussed a few possible options for how to eliminate Bulverism from our society. The suggestion that seemed to transcend most other ideas was that of humility. It is so vital for us to understand that we are not infallible sources of wisdom. If we can understand our own finitude, this helps us to learn to respect others ideas. When we have respect for others this helps us in dialogue, because when we talk we aren't trying to insult them, we genuinely want to help them. When you have the persons best interest at heart, you won't just see them as an ignorant fool, you will see them as a fellow human being who you want to "look along" the light with you. We have gotten too accustomed to seeing those who look at things differently as enemies.

It is natural that as human beings we look at different groups of people as "the other" and ourselves as "the one." We categorize and separate parts of our life to get a sense of understanding. I understand myself as an American because that is defined differently then someone from Germany. Or I define myself as middle class and see the other as upper class. Differences help define us and make us unique. However we cannot see one as superior to the other to the extent that we subjugate them, such as the slavery and racism that was prevalent in America and can be seen even today. When we see someone as different and disagree with their opinions, we cannot simply say they are wrong for reasons that aren't pertinent. We need to prove empirically that one side is correct. Bulverism is a tool to prejudice and hatred. As Christians we need to strive to show the love that Christ showed us to others. We don't have to agree with what they say, but we must still treat them with respect since we are all Gods children. 

"Meditation in a Toolshed"

After first reading Lewis' text I was completely absorbed by the sheer beauty of his piece. The argument was so logical and he was so comprehensive in his work, that by the end of reading it, it seemed impossible to disagree with him. After discussing the issue in class, this seemed to be the case for many students. Certainly questions were raised and a discussion ensued, but this was more a creation from the piece and not an argument against it. After the discussion in class I felt the need to read the text again. Following the reading, I felt like I had a better comprehension of the text but it also made me more curious about the subject in general.

The basic statement that Lewis is making throughout his article is that there are two basic ways of looking at something/someone. You can look at it, from an objective view that sees what is occurring. Or you can look along from a subjective point of view that is the literal experience. The example that Lewis used that makes most sense to me was that of being in love. Looking "at" a relationship would come from a scientist who describes the experience from an outsider's perspective. "For him it is all an affair of the young man's genes and a recognized biological stimulus." However the relationship when looking "along" it is an incredibly different experience. The man in love does not see it as just chemicals and hormones, it is an experience that he feels when he is around her.
Lewis then articulates how our society in recent years has placed a great deal of value in looking at rather than looking along. He then begins to explain why the current status cannot remain. It is understandable that the subjective view can lead us astray, however the objective view is always based in a subjective view that can never be removed.
I think the section that I found most interesting was near the end when Lewis says, "In other words, you can step outside one experience only by stepping inside another. Therefore, if all inside experiences are misleading, we are always misled."I found this idea fascinating because it is so true. No matter how much we try to step outside of our own experience we are always a part of a different experience which still defines how we look at things. After reading this I could not help but question Lewis' first example of light shining in a shed. We can look at the light from the side and see how it shines through the shed, or we can look along it and see the tree and sun outside the shed. It seems that if you are not looking along the light you are looking along the darkness of the shed. I wonder if one is more correct than the other. The obvious answer seems to be that it shifts from example to example and we must discern accordingly. With some examples it is rather obvious, those who saw Nazi Germany as a good thing were most likely looking along a path that was not following God's desires. But what of more controversial topics? I can think of countless examples, such as; gay marriage, abortion, animal rights, etc. I do not have the answer to which path is better to look along, but I found it interesting to see how our own paradigms can differ so greatly.
This is why Lewis' piece is so profound, because he understands he cannot solve every issue in life. However, he does understand that we need to look both at and along an issue to discern it. To fully comprehend something it is necessary to look along it. Conversely, we need the ability to take a step out of our hermeneutic situation, removing ourselves as best we can, so we can question what we know and better understand our own ideas. Looking at and looking along are both inextricable from one another. We must understand that each plays a crucial role in understanding and wisdom, or suffer the pain of idiocy.