As there was quite a snow storm yesterday, many of the churches in the area canceled church. My RD, being the wonderful lady that she is, arranged for us to have church in the lobby this morning. We sang some Christmas Carols and then sat down to listen to a sermon from a pastor at MarsHill. The pastor was talking about the Kingdom of Heaven.
He was talking about how instead of the kingdom of God coming, maybe it is already here inside us. An alarm went off in my head, telling me to be careful how I interpreted this. If taken one way it could be seen as very secular humanistic. We are good, but we can be better, build a Utopia. But then I thought about C.S. Lewis’s idea in The Great Divorce. We are in Hell only if we choose to go back there…but if we keep going we get further and further toward what Christ has for us.
The preacher was talking about how Christ is here in us, the Kingdom of God is here, and we are the Kingdom of God to each other. We serve each other and we find joy in how God teaches us, blesses us and uses us to bless others. And if we keep serving we are coming closer and closer to the Kingdom of Heaven.
In my theology class we talked about how several things about the Rapture theory were confused as the words were misinterpreted. The word taken (as in one will be taken, one will be left) should be seen in this way: the word taken was not a happy word for the Jewish people, who mourned when they were taken from the Promised Land that God had given them into exile. Maybe instead of the believers being taken, those who didn’t believe will be taken. Another word that was misinterpreted is “meet.” Instead of meeting God in the air and going to Heaven, the word meet in this passage means to meet Christ as a victorious conqueror and welcome him into the city. Welcome him home. This of course would be the new Earth.
I am not sure what I really think of all this. I grew up believing the rapture and this is something we just recently studied in Theology so I haven’t really come to terms with what I believe yet, but it really interested me. Lewis thinks that once we have decided to not turn back we are on a constant journey in the Kingdom of Heaven, always drawing closer and closer to our Lord. Lewis believes very much that the Christian faith is a journey.
If we are already in the Kingdom of Heaven we could choose to just stay put, be lazy, not care for the other believers, not care for the unbelievers…but then wouldn’t even living in the Kingdom of Heaven be like a Hell? Maybe Hell is just staying put being content with where you are? Not thinking of others what so ever.
Now here is another idea. If you believe in Predestination think about what you believe that means. We are hand picked to go to Heaven? I don’t think so. We are picked to do a job. It’s part of a journey. To be chosen to be in the Kingdom of Heaven is to be sent on a mission. God hands us the task and we go off to carry it out to the best of our abilities. He blessed Abraham so that his descendants could be a blessing to all nations. We are called to live in the Kingdom of God and to accomplish the tasks God has given us to continue to bring the Kingdom of God to others. All this language is about a mission and a journey.
I am sorry these thoughts are not well scripted. They are all bouncing around in my head right now and I am trying to make sense of them. But I wanted to share them…maybe someone will have time to read the blog and let me know what they think. But we will see. In the mean time, I am going to keep pondering this.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Communication
Andrew brought up some interesting questions in his recent blogs. The paragraph that particularly caught by attention was this:
I think this is, at its foundation, correct. That is to say, the problem is our failure to perceive the existence of God(s) and/or to understand what he (they) want for us and from us. There is a lack of or breakdown in communication.
But I can't be so quick to blame humanity.
When it comes to communication between people, it would be preposterous to assert that a five-year-old is at fault for not understanding an astrophysicist's explanation for the motions of the celestial bodies in scientific jargon. The responsiblility lies with the astrophysicist to clarify, one could even say translate, the scientific language into something more comprehensible to the five-year-old.
Every good speaker and writer recognizes this. Know your audience. Use language and illustrations they can grasp.
How can an omniscient, omnipotent being not be "smart" enough to grasp what our partially-evolved primate brains can? I think he/she/it needs a little more credit.
I think Orual and the Fox are right to question the existence and actions of the gods until they have some evidence. Skepticism is in many ways the guardian of Truth. It has been said that the truth defends itself. But what if a "truth" we hold doesn't stand up under scrutiny?
Andrew asked a question: "How can God talk to us until we understand his language?"
I find myself asking a different question: "Why doesn't God speak to us in a language we actually understand?"
When it comes to miss-communication between an all-powerful, all-knowing being and finite, imperfect creatures, how is it intellectually honest or morally justifiable to place the blame on the obviously inferior party?
For some reason, throwing out the question, throwing up my hands and chanting "God is mystery" just doesn't do it for me like it used to.
"Yes, communication is the problem, but we shouldn't see it as God falling short to talk to us, but ourselves--humanity, being unable to understand what God is saying. This would only make sense, I suppose. After all, we are fallen from perfection. God is unable to reveal his majesty through fallible means of human communication. Mankind is too simple to understand God's celestial tongue."
I think this is, at its foundation, correct. That is to say, the problem is our failure to perceive the existence of God(s) and/or to understand what he (they) want for us and from us. There is a lack of or breakdown in communication.
But I can't be so quick to blame humanity.
When it comes to communication between people, it would be preposterous to assert that a five-year-old is at fault for not understanding an astrophysicist's explanation for the motions of the celestial bodies in scientific jargon. The responsiblility lies with the astrophysicist to clarify, one could even say translate, the scientific language into something more comprehensible to the five-year-old.
Every good speaker and writer recognizes this. Know your audience. Use language and illustrations they can grasp.
How can an omniscient, omnipotent being not be "smart" enough to grasp what our partially-evolved primate brains can? I think he/she/it needs a little more credit.
I think Orual and the Fox are right to question the existence and actions of the gods until they have some evidence. Skepticism is in many ways the guardian of Truth. It has been said that the truth defends itself. But what if a "truth" we hold doesn't stand up under scrutiny?
Andrew asked a question: "How can God talk to us until we understand his language?"
I find myself asking a different question: "Why doesn't God speak to us in a language we actually understand?"
When it comes to miss-communication between an all-powerful, all-knowing being and finite, imperfect creatures, how is it intellectually honest or morally justifiable to place the blame on the obviously inferior party?
For some reason, throwing out the question, throwing up my hands and chanting "God is mystery" just doesn't do it for me like it used to.
More on the complications of Time
In the last few chapters of The Great Divorce, Lewis discuses Time in relation to us as well as Heaven and God. On Earth, we can only experience what is happening as it does. The past is gone and the future is a mystery. As Lewis describes the gigantic beings around the chess board the narrator sees at the end of the book. He suggests that the chess pieces are but representatives of our eternal souls as they appear and are perceived in this world, and that the giants are the whole, eternal culmination of those souls, without the hindrance of Time. MacDonald notes that our souls are meant to be seen without “the lens of time”, and that man can only view such a small segment of his existence at one time because he could not bear to view the entirety of every decision, action, and attribute of his life at the same time.
But is this how God views our existence and the handicap we call time? Does God really dictate everything that happens in the world, or does he just know exactly what will take place because he resides outside of time? In his 27th letter, Scretape advises that God “does not foresee the humans making their free contributions in a future, but sees them doing so in His unbounded, Now.
Of course, we can’t take Screwtape’s word for it. But this is an interesting way of viewing predestination and free will. Is that how God’s plan works? He knows everything and exactly how it will occur in our time all at the same time? Does God’s knowledge of our actions prior to our knowledge or performance of them do anything to the free will that we so frantically cling to? Are we meant to view our existence in the way MacDonald describes it, without the lens of time?
This is so perplexing to me.
Oh, Poetry
Maybe it shouldn’t be surprising, but the height of the pedestal upon which William’s placed poetry frankly shocked me.
Pauline believed that Stanhope would, of course tell the truth because he was a poet and poets could not lie. He could, she confessed, be mistaken. But because of his profession, she would consider everything as true from his point of view.
Mrs. Anstruther, who can face the possibility of death without fear, is not brave enough to recite Stanhope’s poetry. “When she was dead, she might be able to say Stanhope’s poetry properly. Even if there were no other joy, that would be a reason for dying well” (67). What sort of thing is poetry, then, that the idea of just reciting it well will bring a joy worth all that?
How did William’s come by this high opinion of poetry, a subject which almost all school children dread? I find myself wanting to read some of Stanhope’s poetry.
Puddleglum
I was listening to The Silver Chair the other day, and was reminded of just how much I love Puddleglum. He really is the best of the Marshwiggles.
He often seems to be a contradiction: He is the one who wants to go to Harfang the least, yet shows most courage upon arrival. He is the most pessimistic, yet in the worst of times he manages to remember the best.
Perhaps because of all of the times he has expected the worst and been wrong, when he finally gets one right, the children won’t take him seriously. They are too tired, too cold, and too hungry to consider the possibility that Harfang might be a bad idea after all or that the lady in the green dress might not be as sweet as she appears. Pole has started to forget the signs and the Aslan’s warning that things might not be quite what they appear. They have found something they want, and decided it is something they need while the best course of action would have led them in quite the other direction.
They make it out alright in the end, but everything would have been much simpler if they had just remembered the signs, the warnings, and maybe taken Puddleglum a little bit more seriously.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
The Voyage of the Dawn Treader: an Epic Tale?
I would like to spend my last blog talking about the film The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. I know this blog isn't very Philosophic, and I apologize. This is a class about C.S. Lewis too.
I always leave the theatre asking myself, "Why did you even bother seeing this movie?" I would just like to state for the record, my childhood crawled into the fetal position and died after I saw this movie. What a horrible interpretation of such a beautiful story.
If you haven't seem the movie yet stop reading.
* * * Spoilers * * *
Apparently Hollywood was convinced that Lewis didn't create a strong enough objective to accomplish throughout the story. What did they do? Write one in.
What a bunch of bull...
What happened to the spontaneity of adventure? What happened to the curiosity of a child? Why must we spend our time searching for swords and elixirs that will disenchant the evil green "mist" of the dark island? Good Grief.
My biggest problem with this movie is, I feel, a problem with MOST movies.
Why must a beautiful moment of honesty be bogged down by overt speculation, expensive CGI, and Epic battles of do or die?
Aristotle claims that spectacle is the least important aspect of art. He's on the right track.
Beautiful moments in this movie were overloaded with unnecessary spectacle.
As Professor Jeff Barker often tells me, "Just tell the story."
Just tell the story Hollywood. Just tell the story. Quit appeasing our eyes with fireworks and invoke our souls with truth. Why must Reepicheep rise epically into Aslan's country, soaring over a giant gravity defying waterfall? Can he not simply sail into the east and disappear from sight? Does this not evoke a more emotional response?
Not everything in life is as epic as we make it out to be.
Just my two cents, I suppose.
I always leave the theatre asking myself, "Why did you even bother seeing this movie?" I would just like to state for the record, my childhood crawled into the fetal position and died after I saw this movie. What a horrible interpretation of such a beautiful story.
If you haven't seem the movie yet stop reading.
* * * Spoilers * * *
Apparently Hollywood was convinced that Lewis didn't create a strong enough objective to accomplish throughout the story. What did they do? Write one in.
What a bunch of bull...
What happened to the spontaneity of adventure? What happened to the curiosity of a child? Why must we spend our time searching for swords and elixirs that will disenchant the evil green "mist" of the dark island? Good Grief.
My biggest problem with this movie is, I feel, a problem with MOST movies.
Why must a beautiful moment of honesty be bogged down by overt speculation, expensive CGI, and Epic battles of do or die?
Aristotle claims that spectacle is the least important aspect of art. He's on the right track.
Beautiful moments in this movie were overloaded with unnecessary spectacle.
As Professor Jeff Barker often tells me, "Just tell the story."
Just tell the story Hollywood. Just tell the story. Quit appeasing our eyes with fireworks and invoke our souls with truth. Why must Reepicheep rise epically into Aslan's country, soaring over a giant gravity defying waterfall? Can he not simply sail into the east and disappear from sight? Does this not evoke a more emotional response?
Not everything in life is as epic as we make it out to be.
Just my two cents, I suppose.
A Poorly Constructed Blog About the Mystery of Morality
I'm not a biology major, I'm not a psychology, I'm not a religion major. I'm not a philosophy major.
I'm only a theatre major.
I depict the world. I strive to reveal some sort of truth about life through my work. However, theatre artists cannot merely show the glorious truths of God's perfection--that isn't the world we live in. How can you portray good, without an understanding of bad? How would that educate us? How would that instill awareness within us?
This semester I've wrestled a lot with morality.
What is it? Some kind of shot injected into in us at birth? Is it something we grow into, as we are nurtured into society?
Is it relative? Applicable depending on the person?
Is it situational? Applicable depending on the topic?
Is it absolute? Applicable to every person in every situation?
As Heidi mentioned in a previous blog, there seem to be so many shades of gray in this world, and as she concludes, that's OKAY.
But what about pertaining to morality?
What makes me go "Oh, that's acceptable behavior!" or "Oh, that's unacceptable behavior!"
Is morality a social construction? Has this myth of morality just become another NORM that I casually submit to?
I feel as though I'm articulating my thoughts horrendously.
What is morality?!
The ability to discern good conduct from bad conduct?
Pursuing good moral - when someone's motives are carried out with good intentions?
Good intentions? How is anyone to know? How is anyone to know?
We often talk about how complex God is. Try interpreting human intentions.
Gah.
I'm only a theatre major.
I depict the world. I strive to reveal some sort of truth about life through my work. However, theatre artists cannot merely show the glorious truths of God's perfection--that isn't the world we live in. How can you portray good, without an understanding of bad? How would that educate us? How would that instill awareness within us?
This semester I've wrestled a lot with morality.
What is it? Some kind of shot injected into in us at birth? Is it something we grow into, as we are nurtured into society?
Is it relative? Applicable depending on the person?
Is it situational? Applicable depending on the topic?
Is it absolute? Applicable to every person in every situation?
As Heidi mentioned in a previous blog, there seem to be so many shades of gray in this world, and as she concludes, that's OKAY.
But what about pertaining to morality?
What makes me go "Oh, that's acceptable behavior!" or "Oh, that's unacceptable behavior!"
Is morality a social construction? Has this myth of morality just become another NORM that I casually submit to?
I feel as though I'm articulating my thoughts horrendously.
What is morality?!
The ability to discern good conduct from bad conduct?
Pursuing good moral - when someone's motives are carried out with good intentions?
Good intentions? How is anyone to know? How is anyone to know?
We often talk about how complex God is. Try interpreting human intentions.
Gah.
Show yourself!
Death--the unknown. I often question the authenticity of the afterlife. I frequently find myself doubting that the "eternal bliss" (which my grandmother raves about) actually exists. Perhaps I died tonight and discovered that heaven and God really do exist. What would I say to him?
"Why the hell weren't you more obvious back there?!"
I think that's a fairly plausible answer.
In "Till We Have Faces" Orual eventually discovers that Psyche is unable to look upon her husband, and that he only reveals himself in darkness.
She wonders (a question similar to my own), what sort of god is this “that dares not show his face”?
Orual persuades Psyche to bring a lamp into her husbands room and discover the truth. Psyche does and is sent into exile. I would say that Orual is filled with anger toward the gods. After all, if they made themselves known, couldn't all this exile and suffering be avoided?
I relate to this.
Seriously, God, talk to me. Communication, ever heard of it?
Perhaps I'm not looking at this from the right perspective (once again I find myself caught in my own realm of humanity). Yes, communication is the problem, but we shouldn't see it as God falling short to talk to us, but ourselves--humanity, being unable to understand what God is saying. This would only make sense, I suppose. After all, we are fallen from perfection. God is unable to reveal his majesty through fallible means of human communication. Mankind is too simple to understand God's celestial tongue.
Eventually, Orual understands this.
"How can the gods meet us face to face till we have faces?"
How can God talk to us until we understand his language?
"Why the hell weren't you more obvious back there?!"
I think that's a fairly plausible answer.
In "Till We Have Faces" Orual eventually discovers that Psyche is unable to look upon her husband, and that he only reveals himself in darkness.
She wonders (a question similar to my own), what sort of god is this “that dares not show his face”?
Orual persuades Psyche to bring a lamp into her husbands room and discover the truth. Psyche does and is sent into exile. I would say that Orual is filled with anger toward the gods. After all, if they made themselves known, couldn't all this exile and suffering be avoided?
I relate to this.
Seriously, God, talk to me. Communication, ever heard of it?
Perhaps I'm not looking at this from the right perspective (once again I find myself caught in my own realm of humanity). Yes, communication is the problem, but we shouldn't see it as God falling short to talk to us, but ourselves--humanity, being unable to understand what God is saying. This would only make sense, I suppose. After all, we are fallen from perfection. God is unable to reveal his majesty through fallible means of human communication. Mankind is too simple to understand God's celestial tongue.
Eventually, Orual understands this.
"How can the gods meet us face to face till we have faces?"
How can God talk to us until we understand his language?
Not What I Expected
I have always known C.S. Lewis to be an author of the beloved children’s literature and as one of the best theologians and philosophers of his time. But after taking this class, I have realized that Lewis has a lot more to offer, and not an offering that is expected of most Christians today. Before taking the class, I thought that he had many of the same views that I had grown up with, but after reading many of his works, Lewis is far from what most Christians (who haven’t read Lewis) expect from him. And I must say that I am thankful for Lewis not meeting my expectations because I have been challenged beyond belief through what ideas he has brought to the surface. Lewis has helped me to finally overcome many of my legalistic beliefs, and cleared my eyes to see that being a Christian really isn’t all that black and white. Christianity is gray. But the one thing I do know, and Lewis knew, is that Christ came to save us. He loves us and He calls us to love others. Every other idea is extremely fun to think about and wrestle with, but they all fall under these two commandments. In all, Lewis has challenged me with ideas that I never thought I could actually take into consideration. He has provided me with prime conversation topics. He has me taking sides I never thought I would be on. He has helped challenge me in my faith. And he hasn’t been what I expected. He outdone my expectations.
The Four Loves. The Love of Nature
It's a classic case of Enlightenment verses Romanticism. As a theatre major / art minor at a liberal arts school, I often find myself caught in the middle of such debate.
Intellect vs Nature / Mind vs Life / Academia vs Art.
Yet, I'm always baffled by people's radical stance on either subject. And after reading The Four Loves, I think it has become quite clear where Lewis stands. Honestly, I was a bit saddened by his convictions.
"Nature is not a teacher." I've wondered about this quote. Is Lewis disregarding the importance of general revelation? Without it, how can one even BEGIN to understand special revelation?
Later on he calls Wordsworth Philosophaster. Then again, Wordsworth's opinions on Lewis' type of study is equally as outspoken.
Wordsworth clearly has a strong opinion on academia.
I suppose my question is as simple this:
Why such hostility?
Cannot Academics and Artists work together?
Collaboration of such polarized "skills" might enable humanity to unearth the most nuanced and thorough understanding of life.
Coming from my own perspective:
Theatre asks us to represent life. Life is not limited to philosophy. Life is not limited to nature. Life is everything. My desire is to study life--everything.
Intellect vs Nature / Mind vs Life / Academia vs Art.
Yet, I'm always baffled by people's radical stance on either subject. And after reading The Four Loves, I think it has become quite clear where Lewis stands. Honestly, I was a bit saddened by his convictions.
"Nature is not a teacher." I've wondered about this quote. Is Lewis disregarding the importance of general revelation? Without it, how can one even BEGIN to understand special revelation?
Later on he calls Wordsworth Philosophaster. Then again, Wordsworth's opinions on Lewis' type of study is equally as outspoken.
"One impulse from a vernal wood may teach you more of man, of moral evil and of good, than all the sages can."
Wordsworth clearly has a strong opinion on academia.
I suppose my question is as simple this:
Why such hostility?
Cannot Academics and Artists work together?
Collaboration of such polarized "skills" might enable humanity to unearth the most nuanced and thorough understanding of life.
Coming from my own perspective:
Theatre asks us to represent life. Life is not limited to philosophy. Life is not limited to nature. Life is everything. My desire is to study life--everything.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Demons or Depravity?
I've been intrigued by this idea ever since hearing it brought up the first day we discussed Screwtape, because it can completely change your perspective on the book and on life depending on how you choose to see Wormwood and Screwtape. It's a curious thought: did Lewis write this book about demons or as a commentary on the complete depravity of our human condition? The first question must be whether or not you believe in literal demons that mess with our minds and are out to capture our souls. Maybe you believe in a literal Satan and demons, but don't think they really work this way. Maybe you think this story is totally possible. I could honestly make a case for either way of looking at it as I'm not certain where I stand just yet. My one concern about joining the intense and literal spiritual warfare camp is that I think circumstances in life can be over-spiritualized. If my car didn't start today and it made me so mad that I said a nasty word, is this the work of Satan? If my stomach growls during church and I'm just a tad distracted for the rest of the sermon, is this the work of Satan? However, there may also be the danger of under-spiritualizing things. We talk about being the hands and feet of Christ to the world. An unbeliever may look at someone serving in a soup kitchen and say they are a good person, but that is all. Whereas I'm more inclined to say that the "fruit" of our lives is the product of God's work in us, not our natural "goodness" as a person.
Lewis notes in the preface that it is a grave mistake to disbelieve in the existence of demons/the devil, but he also has a very "unliteral" view of hell. I think that both ways of looking at this book are useful and incredibly interesting, even if they are very different. Many of the weaknesses preyed upon by Wormwood in the story exist in our lives, quite probably without the help of demons. The story can be as much an account of our fallen humanity as it is a mocking portrait of evil spirits. Either way you choose to see it, there has to be at least a few situations in the book that make you pause, consider, and then evaluate the many ways we are so very human and so very in need of Christ.
Lewis notes in the preface that it is a grave mistake to disbelieve in the existence of demons/the devil, but he also has a very "unliteral" view of hell. I think that both ways of looking at this book are useful and incredibly interesting, even if they are very different. Many of the weaknesses preyed upon by Wormwood in the story exist in our lives, quite probably without the help of demons. The story can be as much an account of our fallen humanity as it is a mocking portrait of evil spirits. Either way you choose to see it, there has to be at least a few situations in the book that make you pause, consider, and then evaluate the many ways we are so very human and so very in need of Christ.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
learning curve
I do have to say that this class has probably been one of the most challenging classes thought process wise that I have taken in the past 3 1/2 years at Northwestern. My different beliefs that I have had, struggled with have been rocked again by the different perceptions that C.S. Lewis presents throughout all his books.
One of the main things I have had to chew on is the concept of potentially damning self to hell or well choosing hell. The time of when someone becomes so consumed with self, they forget about everything and everyone else. They are overcome with whatever temporarily makes them happy and then continuously searches out for more and will do whatever, simply to fulfill this desire. I look at the American society and this is what I see. I see people becoming so consumed with themselves, this very individualistic society. I see this even in Christians. Yes they give money to the poor, to most likely make themselves feel good. But what about being right there with the poor? Struggling with them? Getting to know them? Helping them? This obviously leads to the different perceptions of love that Lewis gives. How each love cannot fully function without charity. Otherwise they become so inward that they blow up in their own faces and are not the loves that God intended them to be. Love can be a bad thing I have kind of decided if it is not used for its intended purposes and if it is not in check with the love with Christ proportionately. It's silly to say that one can love too much, but can it be dangerous to a person if Christ is not in that love?
These are just some of the things that I have struggled with this semester. There are definitely more struggles and thoughts that have been rambling through my mind and that have been regurgitated on my notes for different classes, in my journal and in conversations with my friends. C.S. Lewis, you're a tricky one, but a good one.
One of the main things I have had to chew on is the concept of potentially damning self to hell or well choosing hell. The time of when someone becomes so consumed with self, they forget about everything and everyone else. They are overcome with whatever temporarily makes them happy and then continuously searches out for more and will do whatever, simply to fulfill this desire. I look at the American society and this is what I see. I see people becoming so consumed with themselves, this very individualistic society. I see this even in Christians. Yes they give money to the poor, to most likely make themselves feel good. But what about being right there with the poor? Struggling with them? Getting to know them? Helping them? This obviously leads to the different perceptions of love that Lewis gives. How each love cannot fully function without charity. Otherwise they become so inward that they blow up in their own faces and are not the loves that God intended them to be. Love can be a bad thing I have kind of decided if it is not used for its intended purposes and if it is not in check with the love with Christ proportionately. It's silly to say that one can love too much, but can it be dangerous to a person if Christ is not in that love?
These are just some of the things that I have struggled with this semester. There are definitely more struggles and thoughts that have been rambling through my mind and that have been regurgitated on my notes for different classes, in my journal and in conversations with my friends. C.S. Lewis, you're a tricky one, but a good one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)