In A Grief Observed, I couldn’t help but focus on Lewis’ way in working through his thoughts. It’s amazing that even a man as learned and smart as Lewis, when face with a situation such as this, falls away from any thoughts he had about dealing with grief. We often can see what might be the best way to deal with a situation such as this and even what God has set in place for us to use to overcome this grief, but we don’t want it. We need time to be angry, to let out those deepest feelings of mistrust and dislike. If we try to fit a simple Band-Aid around such a deep wound we leave the broken all the way at the bottom untouched. It is important to have people along each and every step. Without interaction and wrestling with the situation with someone else we lose any sort of gain that may come from a tragedy. People was created by God to be in community with one another, to go through this situation thinking that no one can help you is selfish and it also provides the other people an opportunity to learn through yourself so they can work through their own tragedies. When Jesus was crucified his disciples were filled with grief, so they went off by themselves and look what happened. Their deepest darkest feelings came out, even enough to renounce Jesus three times. Think if they had stayed together the power they would have over grief in community with each other.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
A Greif Observed
The Problem of Pain
In the Problem of Pain Lewis talks about what does the goodness of God look like? As we have seen in a recent chapel video that asked who God was, many people used one word to describe him and that is love. Lewis would agree with this—that the goodness of God is love. Where people often misinterpret love is in saying that love is kindness. This is where we run into the problem of pain; if we associate God’s character with goodness and goodness with love and love with kindness, then Gods love can only be shown through kind acts, any other unkind acts must come from some other external source—this is Manichaeism or dualism (both of which have been denounced by the Church.) If our God is the kind loving best friend God, than there is no room for discipline, pain, suffering, rejection, and torment. Who would want to have a best friend that did these things to us? Lewis says that “God is both further from us, and nearer to us, than any other being.” God knows us so well, each and every breath that we take he knows “Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God. Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.” Yet “In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.” Again we are so close yet so far from Him.
friendship
According to Lewis, friendship is the “least inquisitive of the loves.” Friendship doesn’t focus on each other, but rather on the common interest that unites them. Lewis does acknowledge the fact that the loves overlap, but if a friendship is based on learning and caring about the other person, is it more than “Friendship” (according to Lewis)?
In my personal experience, my greatest friendship focuses mainly on the other person. My best friend Rachel and I have been friends for 13 years. We have had many shared experiences, which could be a part of why we are such good friends, but I feel that our friendship is mostly based on our knowledge and love for each other. For example, I have another friendship based solely on common interest, not on ‘getting to know the other person.’ I feel that my friendship with Rachel is a deeper, more meaningful relationship than mine with Kristina, because I know Rachel inside and out, and vice versa. Does that make my friendship with Rachel more than just friendship, according to Lewis?
I guess in this respect I would go further than Lewis does. I believe that his definition friendship has two levels: that based on common interest and that based on loving and caring for the other person. The second level is different than his definition of eros, but more than his definition of friendship.
Lewis, Nowen vs. Augustine
This week I would like to recall Lewis's reflection from "Charity" and how he was critical of Augustine's belief that we should not over-invest our love in the mortals to protect ourselves from needless hurt when we lose them but to devote our deepest love to God. Lewis would agree that our deepest love should be for God; however, he was critical of Augustine's assertion that we should be selective in how we give out our love. Lewis claimed that we should love all at all costs. Hold nothing back. Give all of your heart away to those you are near to and do not withhold love from them to protect yourself from the pain of losing that someone. Lewis's challenge to give your heart away no matter how it may hurt you in the end reminded me of an excerpt from the diary of Henri Nouwen. Nowen was a Dutch priest who wrote The Inner Voice of Love, a beautiful collection of Nowen's thoughts written during some of his life's most difficult trials. Nowen wrote about love on different occasions in his journal, one time guiding Christians what love is and what love isn't-giving everyone what they ask vs. taking care of yourself and giving people what is necessary-and what love is-loving even at the risk of being hurt with all you have. He asserted when we are hurt by someone because we chose to love them deeply we have the choice to love again or to run from loving anyone. He asserted that when we choose to love again the pain we once experienced from love allows us to love more deeply. With Nowen and Lewis I agree. Love is a theme of the Scriptures and a reason for our existence. I believe Christ took the risk to love us at the cost of rejection, humiliation and his very life. Why shouldn't we do the same for one another, even if it costs us more pain?
Can friendship exist without inquisitiveness?
As I read through the chapter in The Four Loves on friendship, I found myself comparing Lewis's views with my own experiences. Lewis claims that friendship is based on a shared interest. He further describes it as agreement on a question, while not considered important to others, important to the individuals in the friendship.
Certainly there must be different types of friendship in regard to depth and quality. I agree that friendship may begin with a shared interest, but I do not think it always remains based on that interest. People change and their interests change. For example, I have a friend who I have been friends with for as long as I can remember. I can't ever remember a time, however, when our friendship was based solely on one shared interest. It is true that we share many interests, but as we have both grown older, I think that our friendship has evolved to be based on caring about the other person and who they are. I have other friends with whom I would say I have not as strong of a relationship. Such friendships tend to revolve around a certain class that I'm taking or a common major.
Lewis claims that "we do not want to know about our friend's affairs at all" but that such details come out "casually" (p.70). Such an idea of friendship seems polarly opposite to the modern idea of how friendship is portrayed. In both of the types of friendships I previously described, I feel that it is important to inquire, for example, about how that person's day went, how they are liking their classes, or if their mom has recovered from her illness. Such inquisitiveness shows friends that one is interested in more than just one shared common interest. It demonstrates that one cares about who that person is and about their journey in life.
Perhaps the idea of friendship has changed since Lewis's time or the types of friendships that Lewis had tended to be more academically based than most friendships are today. For me, academics can be a part of the friendship, but inquisitiveness about other areas of life is essential in order that both people feel that they are wholly accepted and cared for by the other. This implies a versatility not present in Lewis's definition of friendship, without which, I can imagine the friendship eventually becoming dull.
It is also possible that Lewis would attribute the deeper quality (and inquisitiveness) that I value in friendships to another love. He does acknowledge in each chapter that one love is not able to be fully separated from the others. Even so, I do not agree that it is possible to have a deep, true friendship without some inquisitiveness.
Certainly there must be different types of friendship in regard to depth and quality. I agree that friendship may begin with a shared interest, but I do not think it always remains based on that interest. People change and their interests change. For example, I have a friend who I have been friends with for as long as I can remember. I can't ever remember a time, however, when our friendship was based solely on one shared interest. It is true that we share many interests, but as we have both grown older, I think that our friendship has evolved to be based on caring about the other person and who they are. I have other friends with whom I would say I have not as strong of a relationship. Such friendships tend to revolve around a certain class that I'm taking or a common major.
Lewis claims that "we do not want to know about our friend's affairs at all" but that such details come out "casually" (p.70). Such an idea of friendship seems polarly opposite to the modern idea of how friendship is portrayed. In both of the types of friendships I previously described, I feel that it is important to inquire, for example, about how that person's day went, how they are liking their classes, or if their mom has recovered from her illness. Such inquisitiveness shows friends that one is interested in more than just one shared common interest. It demonstrates that one cares about who that person is and about their journey in life.
Perhaps the idea of friendship has changed since Lewis's time or the types of friendships that Lewis had tended to be more academically based than most friendships are today. For me, academics can be a part of the friendship, but inquisitiveness about other areas of life is essential in order that both people feel that they are wholly accepted and cared for by the other. This implies a versatility not present in Lewis's definition of friendship, without which, I can imagine the friendship eventually becoming dull.
It is also possible that Lewis would attribute the deeper quality (and inquisitiveness) that I value in friendships to another love. He does acknowledge in each chapter that one love is not able to be fully separated from the others. Even so, I do not agree that it is possible to have a deep, true friendship without some inquisitiveness.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Love and Vulnerability
To love at all is to be vulnerable. Love anything, and your heart will certainly be wrung and possibly broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it intact, you must give your heart to no one, not even to an animal. Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all entanglements; lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your selfishness. But in that casket—safe, dark, motionless, airless—it will change (Four Loves, 121).
In both The Problem of Pain and The Four Loves we have come across this idea of love changing you. In the Problem of pain Lewis showed us that it is necessary to love someone as they are, but shouldn’t love also try to perfect? To be loved by God is to be letting him perfect us so that we can become something that is more pleasing to him. To some people, this is a turn off. They think they don’t need perfecting and if they do, they will do it themselves. Having someone tell us that they love us, but that there is a part of us they don’t love and want to change, is not an easy thing to accept. They have wounded our pride, our ego. So maybe we are just rejecting love. This brings me to my next point.
There are two aspects of love that we need to remember. Love is both an action and a reaction. It is giving, it is receiving. You can love someone unconditionally, but because you are loving someone when they aren’t deserving of it, that love could change someone. Often, it takes us being vulnerable and accepting and admitting that vulnerability before we can know love. This is the kind of love that Lewis is showing us in the chapter entitled “Charity” in The Four Loves. Love is opening yourself up to another person, being vulnerable, admitting that there are things that could change and allowing that other person to love you gently and show you what you could improve upon.
The exchange then should be like this: Each person must do two things. 1) They must love unconditionally, not hating them because of their faults. 2) They must open themselves up to be changed by someone else. I am not saying that they should open up to a “I am going to change you” attitude, but they should allow the other person to teach them.
Love is a changing thing. It is not static in nature, but shifting. One must accept people and one must open up himself to be changed. In loving people just the way they are, they will be more likely to be receptive to who you are and less likely to want to force change in you. Instead, you will both be able to be open to what the other could teach you.
In both The Problem of Pain and The Four Loves we have come across this idea of love changing you. In the Problem of pain Lewis showed us that it is necessary to love someone as they are, but shouldn’t love also try to perfect? To be loved by God is to be letting him perfect us so that we can become something that is more pleasing to him. To some people, this is a turn off. They think they don’t need perfecting and if they do, they will do it themselves. Having someone tell us that they love us, but that there is a part of us they don’t love and want to change, is not an easy thing to accept. They have wounded our pride, our ego. So maybe we are just rejecting love. This brings me to my next point.
There are two aspects of love that we need to remember. Love is both an action and a reaction. It is giving, it is receiving. You can love someone unconditionally, but because you are loving someone when they aren’t deserving of it, that love could change someone. Often, it takes us being vulnerable and accepting and admitting that vulnerability before we can know love. This is the kind of love that Lewis is showing us in the chapter entitled “Charity” in The Four Loves. Love is opening yourself up to another person, being vulnerable, admitting that there are things that could change and allowing that other person to love you gently and show you what you could improve upon.
The exchange then should be like this: Each person must do two things. 1) They must love unconditionally, not hating them because of their faults. 2) They must open themselves up to be changed by someone else. I am not saying that they should open up to a “I am going to change you” attitude, but they should allow the other person to teach them.
Love is a changing thing. It is not static in nature, but shifting. One must accept people and one must open up himself to be changed. In loving people just the way they are, they will be more likely to be receptive to who you are and less likely to want to force change in you. Instead, you will both be able to be open to what the other could teach you.
About an old country song.
There’s this old country classic called “Standing Outside the Fire” by Garth Brooks, maybe some of you will admit to knowing it, too. As weird as it may seem to say this, I think Lewis and Garth may have written it together if they hadn’t been separated by a few decades. Well, maybe I wouldn’t go quite that far, but there are definitely some similarities in concept. The second verse begins like this:
“We call them strong,
those who can face this world alone,
who seem to get by on their own,
those who will never take the fall.”
Now if you were to look up the rest of the lyrics, you may think that this is just another twang-ridden country love ballad. You can see it that way or you can watch the video and see a whole new meaning. (Hint: the young man in the storyline has Down’s syndrome.)
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0kNr8HOCZk)The point to all this is that we live in a world that often glorifies playing it safe or at least not letting anyone have the power to hurt you. Vulnerability is almost taboo. (Casual sex, anyone?) The strong and ideal individual is independent, self-reliant, and untouchable.
Then along comes this idea of love, especially the form discussed in Lewis’s chapter titled “Charity.” This idea that to be breakable is to be redeemable is so cool to me. From a personal standpoint, I can see the pull of having an unbreakable heart, but I would rather have a broken one than an unredeemable. I feel like people are becoming better and better at putting up walls and elaborate defenses. As Christians, I believe we are called to live counter-culturally, and this can start with the way we love. It’s dangerous, potentially messy, and opens our emotions up to pain and rejection. But if the alternative is “Hell” (121), I’d say the risk is worth it in friendship, charity, eros, and even affection.
Can we Choose Love?
I've heard it multiple times before, most memorably through a sermon during band tour last year: Love is an action, not an emotion, Love is a choice and a commitment, Love isn't something that you feel, it's something that you do. This is a common Christian way to explain why the loving feelings that people have can go away, but does it really work that way? Can we really choose who we love?
According to Lewis, that seems to depend on the kind of Love. About Affection, Lewis says that it "almost slinks or seeps through our lives" (34). He also makes a claim about how you don't notice Affection beginning; by the time you notice that it is there, it has been there for quite some time, slowly building within you. He speaks about affection, calling it a Feeling. Affection is definitely something that happens to a person; you begin to feel Affection for a person because they become familiar to you. You feel Affection for the people that you are near, not because you choose to, but because they occupy a place in your life that you take for granted and slowly grow on you.
Friendship, in Lewis' opinion is a different story. Lewis compares Affection to Friendship by saying that you do not choose those that you have Affection for, you do choose your friends. But even by Lewis' standards of Friendship, this doesn't seem quite right. Lewis describes Friendship as the relationship that appears when two Companions discover something deeper that they have in common. But does this deeper common interest really imply that you made a choice? You didn't really choose to have an interest in that specific thing and you definitely didn't choose that specific person to have a shared interest in it, so did you choose that friend? In a sense you do choose to spend more time with this new friend than with the rest of your companions, but this isn't what Lewis describes as Friendship. The choice is made to keep the relationship with the friend strong, not to feel the Love of Friendship for that person. Friendship also has a component that Lewis doesn't mention. What of the "unlikely friends"? These people become friends not because of a shared interest, but because of circumstances. Would Lewis consider their shared circumstances a shared interest? We are both interested in getting out of this situation, and thus we have a shared interest that makes us friends? Maybe. But you still didn't choose to be put in that situation with that person. You may become friends with someone that you never would have chosen in different circumstances and because of this it is hard to say that you really do choose your friends and thus choose which people to bestow Friendship upon.
I think, however, that the sermon about choosing Love was directed more at Eros than any other form of Love. It was about how you choose to love the person that you are married to and that the choices you make to prolong your marriage are decisions to love that person. I don't think that this really describes what it means to Love another person. Just like in Friendship, in Eros there are decisions that need to be made to keep a relationship strong, but that isn't Love in itself. Eros, according to Lewis "makes a man really want, not a woman, but one particular woman." (94). Eros is a feeling that creates a desire for one other person. That person is not necessarily the one that you would have chosen if you could truly choose. Romance movies and novels both show the way that people view love. They show that sometimes you can love someone in the wrong situation, the wrong place at the wrong time, that while you might truly wish to love the person who loves you, you just don't. This is what Lewis means when he talks about Love causing adultery and other sins. In this situation the person does not love his or her spouse and loves another, thus Love drives him or her away from the spouse and to the lover. I believe that the language we use for love "I fell in love" is fairly accurate. Love can catch you by surprise. You can fall in love with someone who you never would have chosen.
So while I believe that "keeping Love alive" or keeping relationships strong does involve choices, it isn't Love in itself. I believe that you can desire to Love a person and that sometimes Love does develop out of this, but I also think I can safely say that not every Love is a choice. You do not choose the people that you feel Affection for and Friendship and Eros do not seem to rely as heavily on choices as some people think.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Does altruistic love truly exist?
Is it possible for love to be given to another without any selfish motivations attached? Even prior to reading C.S. Lewis’ Four Loves, I have pondered this question. Why do I give love to others? Is it because I genuinely care for them and for their needs? Is it because I want to be recognized as a loving person? But, what about acts of love I do in secret? Maybe even those acts are done because I want to feel good about myself.
In pondering these questions, I have come to realize that any love I give to others purely out of my ”self” will never be truly altruistic. The Gift-loves of my own nature, though they often result in good, “never quite seek simply the good of the loved object for the object’s own sake. They are biased in favour of those goods they can themselves bestow, or those which they would like best themselves, or those they want the object to lead” (176). Pure altruistic love, Divine Gift-love, can only be achieved when “Love Himself work[s]in a man” (176).
But where do I even begin to love others with God’s love and not my own? It seems impossible. Even Lewis says, “The total and secure transformation of a natural love into a mode of Charity [Divine Gift-love] is a work so difficult that perhaps no fallen man has ever come within sight of doing it perfectly” (185). But, Lewis also says that such transformation is inexorable. God commands that we love one another, so we must at least try. In Leviticus 19:18, the Israelites were told, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” I don’t think this applies to us anymore. (Bear with me for a moment). I don’t think it applies because I think God now calls us to something greater, in light of Christ’s death and the new picture of love that we are given through it. I don’t even always love myself as God intends (I either love myself too much or am too hard on myself), so why would I want to love my neighbor like that? In John 13, Jesus says this, “A new commandment I give you. . .that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.” We are not to love others with our own selfish love but with the love of God, with the love that he gives to us.
And, just what is this love? Well, in John 15, Jesus says, “As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love.” Jesus says here that he loves us just as much as the Father loves him! That is an incredibly huge love that I cannot possibly give on my own, but it is the kind of love he calls us to bestow upon others – to love others as he loves us.
I don’t think we can give Divine-Gift love to others by simply trying to do so. The only way to give it to others is through a surrender of ourselves to let God love through us. We begin to love others altruistically, with Charity, with Divine-gift love, with the love that God bestows upon us, not through our own striving but through an attempt to know God and his love more fully, so much so that our love for him grows and causes us to surrender our selfish love in order that Love Himself might live and love in us. “By loving Him more than them we shall love them more than we now do” (191).
In pondering these questions, I have come to realize that any love I give to others purely out of my ”self” will never be truly altruistic. The Gift-loves of my own nature, though they often result in good, “never quite seek simply the good of the loved object for the object’s own sake. They are biased in favour of those goods they can themselves bestow, or those which they would like best themselves, or those they want the object to lead” (176). Pure altruistic love, Divine Gift-love, can only be achieved when “Love Himself work[s]in a man” (176).
But where do I even begin to love others with God’s love and not my own? It seems impossible. Even Lewis says, “The total and secure transformation of a natural love into a mode of Charity [Divine Gift-love] is a work so difficult that perhaps no fallen man has ever come within sight of doing it perfectly” (185). But, Lewis also says that such transformation is inexorable. God commands that we love one another, so we must at least try. In Leviticus 19:18, the Israelites were told, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” I don’t think this applies to us anymore. (Bear with me for a moment). I don’t think it applies because I think God now calls us to something greater, in light of Christ’s death and the new picture of love that we are given through it. I don’t even always love myself as God intends (I either love myself too much or am too hard on myself), so why would I want to love my neighbor like that? In John 13, Jesus says this, “A new commandment I give you. . .that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.” We are not to love others with our own selfish love but with the love of God, with the love that he gives to us.
And, just what is this love? Well, in John 15, Jesus says, “As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love.” Jesus says here that he loves us just as much as the Father loves him! That is an incredibly huge love that I cannot possibly give on my own, but it is the kind of love he calls us to bestow upon others – to love others as he loves us.
I don’t think we can give Divine-Gift love to others by simply trying to do so. The only way to give it to others is through a surrender of ourselves to let God love through us. We begin to love others altruistically, with Charity, with Divine-gift love, with the love that God bestows upon us, not through our own striving but through an attempt to know God and his love more fully, so much so that our love for him grows and causes us to surrender our selfish love in order that Love Himself might live and love in us. “By loving Him more than them we shall love them more than we now do” (191).
Friends with God
According to CS Lewis' picture of friendship, it is based on a common interest, a common world view, a shared passion. An interest in one another is either entirely nonexistent, or a byproduct, never the goal. How your day went, your plans for the future, your favorite color are not topics of conversation. They may come up incidentally, but they are not the focus. Given this view of friendship, I think it is perfectly understandable that CS Lewis does not think friendship with God is a good idea, if it is even a possibility.
Can you imagine a conversation with God about History? What about Theology? Debating the different theories of Restoration theology wouldn't take too long. Our relationship with God isn't about a shared interest of sports or a really excellent television show. Its about so much more than that.
Now. I'm not saying that I agree with Lewis' view friendship - I think he missed the mark on a few crucial points. However, given what he has to say on the topic, I can understand his opinion on this point.
Can you imagine a conversation with God about History? What about Theology? Debating the different theories of Restoration theology wouldn't take too long. Our relationship with God isn't about a shared interest of sports or a really excellent television show. Its about so much more than that.
Now. I'm not saying that I agree with Lewis' view friendship - I think he missed the mark on a few crucial points. However, given what he has to say on the topic, I can understand his opinion on this point.
Need-love vs. Gift-love
Human love is a mixture of gift and need, and it seems our need is predominant. We try to be like God, increasing our gift-love, but we will always have needs.
We rely on need-love, but God does not. Through Need-love, we realize our dependence upon God. Dependence is not a bad thing. It allows us to come close to God, asking Him to help us along each step of the way. God creates us to need community of others and to need Him. It's important to reflect on why it's necessary. It keeps us accountable, gives us purpose in encouraging others, etc. Charity involves giving-- are we as God's creations able to graciously accept His gifts?
Through practicing gift-love, we see God, just as we see things by His light. We "do" gift-love whenever we love one another without the necessity of receiving anything in return. Sometimes need-love is a result of gift-love, but it seems like this shouldn't be expected. Lewis mentions clothing the naked and feeding the hungry. Yet oftentimes with gift-love, we love because have the desire. Something sparks our interest or brings us happiness. This isn't so with God's gift-love. He doesn't need one thing from us or even because it brings Him something in the long run. God loves because He is love. We are made to need love. If we didn't need love, we wouldn't need God.So need is good-- it shows our humanity.
"In God there is no hunger that needs to be filled, only plenteousness that desires to give" (The Four Loves, 126). Lewis goes on to talk about how God creates us even though we "take advantage of Him". No matter what, He will keep on giving to us through gift-love. We might go right on needing from Him, but it's only part of our humanity.
We rely on need-love, but God does not. Through Need-love, we realize our dependence upon God. Dependence is not a bad thing. It allows us to come close to God, asking Him to help us along each step of the way. God creates us to need community of others and to need Him. It's important to reflect on why it's necessary. It keeps us accountable, gives us purpose in encouraging others, etc. Charity involves giving-- are we as God's creations able to graciously accept His gifts?
Through practicing gift-love, we see God, just as we see things by His light. We "do" gift-love whenever we love one another without the necessity of receiving anything in return. Sometimes need-love is a result of gift-love, but it seems like this shouldn't be expected. Lewis mentions clothing the naked and feeding the hungry. Yet oftentimes with gift-love, we love because have the desire. Something sparks our interest or brings us happiness. This isn't so with God's gift-love. He doesn't need one thing from us or even because it brings Him something in the long run. God loves because He is love. We are made to need love. If we didn't need love, we wouldn't need God.So need is good-- it shows our humanity.
"In God there is no hunger that needs to be filled, only plenteousness that desires to give" (The Four Loves, 126). Lewis goes on to talk about how God creates us even though we "take advantage of Him". No matter what, He will keep on giving to us through gift-love. We might go right on needing from Him, but it's only part of our humanity.
Relationships
"By loving Him more than them we shall love them more than we now do" (The Four Loves, p. 139). While reading the "Charity" chapter, this statement from Lewis stuck out to me. He is talking about what love in Heaven will be like, but I think it's an encouragement in regards to our relationships on this earth.
This statement is a great reminder for any Christian, in my opinion. If God is my main priority, the object, so to speak, of most of my passion, my anchor, then the other aspects of my life will be better for it, including my relationships, which Lewis is referring to. I can be as intentional as possible with my relationships and devote a large amount of effort to these relationships, but if these human relationships become important than God, then it's not going to work. I think this reduces some of the anxiety or nervousness I feel about relationships; I don't necessarily need to try to love people more, but love God more. As a result, the relationships I have with others will naturally benefit. I know this is a systematic way of looking at my relationship with God and with others; it's not a simple thing to always keep God as the center of my life. Being a fallen, sinful human, this is incredibly difficult!
Overall, this idea that Lewis expresses was a good reminder for me because I'm the type of person who worries about everything. When God is the center of my life, everything else falls into place. It's much easier said than done, but it's encouraging nonetheless.
This statement is a great reminder for any Christian, in my opinion. If God is my main priority, the object, so to speak, of most of my passion, my anchor, then the other aspects of my life will be better for it, including my relationships, which Lewis is referring to. I can be as intentional as possible with my relationships and devote a large amount of effort to these relationships, but if these human relationships become important than God, then it's not going to work. I think this reduces some of the anxiety or nervousness I feel about relationships; I don't necessarily need to try to love people more, but love God more. As a result, the relationships I have with others will naturally benefit. I know this is a systematic way of looking at my relationship with God and with others; it's not a simple thing to always keep God as the center of my life. Being a fallen, sinful human, this is incredibly difficult!
Overall, this idea that Lewis expresses was a good reminder for me because I'm the type of person who worries about everything. When God is the center of my life, everything else falls into place. It's much easier said than done, but it's encouraging nonetheless.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Jesus....A Friend
Judging by the blogs and class, Lewis' chapter on Friendship brings out a lot of issues. I guess I'll continue to stir the pot with something that's come across in my thoughts. Lewis writes that "Friendship is very rarely the image under which Scripture represents the love between God and Man." (78) My quick skims through the Bible have found this to be true, but one passage in particular rings out, and I think it's an important emphasis.
"Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command...Instead I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit--fruit that will last." (John 15:13-16)
I really love this passage--Jesus is stressing himself as a friend, more than a master or savior, but one willing to lay down his life for us. "I have called you friends". Not only does Jesus claim himself as "friend", but calls us "friends". "One knows nobody so well as one's 'fellow'" (71). Jesus shares that intimacy with us, that closesness that speaks beyond a Master-Servant. He wants to know our business, share in it.
I read Jensen's article on Lewis' Friendship chapter and I found myself agreeing a lot with what Jensen had to say. Lewis spends much time on the "shared interest" of friendship, but I liked Jensen's emphasis on friendship beyond the interest. "...the shared interest simply explains the genesis of a friendship...After all, Lewis says when two people 'share their vision--it is then that friendship is born'...You and I cannot become friends without sharing something right?...Perhaps the important thing is not how a friendship begins but how ongoing friendship is to be characterized." Taking in all this, I want to push towards Jesus not only being that "shared interest" but also the "how" in the "ongoing friendship".
Jesus isn't just "standing beside us", but I think His friendship with us means turning to face us. He looks within us, within our lives and desires. He takes what we need, (the most basic being redemption) and grants it freely. I think Jesus becomes a friend to us, not for the shared interest in Him, but for the sake of the relationship, for the Love of Neighbor. I wonder if Lewis saw Jesus as such a friend, or if His view of Him was so High that he didn't think it possible or proper to really "know his master's business" (John 15:15). Or maybe I'm just too much of the hymn "I've Got a Friend In Jesus"
"Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command...Instead I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit--fruit that will last." (John 15:13-16)
I really love this passage--Jesus is stressing himself as a friend, more than a master or savior, but one willing to lay down his life for us. "I have called you friends". Not only does Jesus claim himself as "friend", but calls us "friends". "One knows nobody so well as one's 'fellow'" (71). Jesus shares that intimacy with us, that closesness that speaks beyond a Master-Servant. He wants to know our business, share in it.
I read Jensen's article on Lewis' Friendship chapter and I found myself agreeing a lot with what Jensen had to say. Lewis spends much time on the "shared interest" of friendship, but I liked Jensen's emphasis on friendship beyond the interest. "...the shared interest simply explains the genesis of a friendship...After all, Lewis says when two people 'share their vision--it is then that friendship is born'...You and I cannot become friends without sharing something right?...Perhaps the important thing is not how a friendship begins but how ongoing friendship is to be characterized." Taking in all this, I want to push towards Jesus not only being that "shared interest" but also the "how" in the "ongoing friendship".
Jesus isn't just "standing beside us", but I think His friendship with us means turning to face us. He looks within us, within our lives and desires. He takes what we need, (the most basic being redemption) and grants it freely. I think Jesus becomes a friend to us, not for the shared interest in Him, but for the sake of the relationship, for the Love of Neighbor. I wonder if Lewis saw Jesus as such a friend, or if His view of Him was so High that he didn't think it possible or proper to really "know his master's business" (John 15:15). Or maybe I'm just too much of the hymn "I've Got a Friend In Jesus"
Monday, October 25, 2010
Friendship Love
"Lovers are always talking to one another about their love; Friends hardly ever talk about their Friendship. Lovers are normally face to face, absorbed in each other; Friends, side by side, absorbed in some common interest." (pg. 61)
I don't know if I fully agree with Lewis' view here. I agree with the view of the lovers face to face and devoted to one another, involving working on their relationship, getting to know each other more in depth all the time, and focusing on each other's needs. But I don't think that friendship doesn't involve this sort of work. Obviously, friendship isn't going to be eros in many ways, but I don't think that friendship is solely focusing on common interests.
I wouldn't depict friends always as side by side; friends also are face to face when they show interest and care for one another. Friendship is a relationship that needs attention and devotion. It requires getting to know one another better and that involves showing interest. Many things do just come up over time, but a showed interest is also quite necessary. As well as interest, focusing on a friends needs is necessary for a successful friendship. A friends needs are going to be different than a lovers needs, but that doesn't mean a friend won't need a shoulder to cry on or a listening ear or consideration on how you can show your friendship-love to them. So I don't feel that friendship is just about some common interest. I think it may start that way, but then goes much deeper.
I don't know if I fully agree with Lewis' view here. I agree with the view of the lovers face to face and devoted to one another, involving working on their relationship, getting to know each other more in depth all the time, and focusing on each other's needs. But I don't think that friendship doesn't involve this sort of work. Obviously, friendship isn't going to be eros in many ways, but I don't think that friendship is solely focusing on common interests.
I wouldn't depict friends always as side by side; friends also are face to face when they show interest and care for one another. Friendship is a relationship that needs attention and devotion. It requires getting to know one another better and that involves showing interest. Many things do just come up over time, but a showed interest is also quite necessary. As well as interest, focusing on a friends needs is necessary for a successful friendship. A friends needs are going to be different than a lovers needs, but that doesn't mean a friend won't need a shoulder to cry on or a listening ear or consideration on how you can show your friendship-love to them. So I don't feel that friendship is just about some common interest. I think it may start that way, but then goes much deeper.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
We Fell Through Time?
The weight of scientific research suggests that Homo sapiens are at least biologically the result of a few million years of evolution since our divergence the other great apes and that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. This is in direct opposition to a concordant view of the Bible. This has understandably created a lot of conflict between the church and science over the past 150 years or so. Many secular scientists scoff at Christians for believing in literal six day creation, while Christians shun “secular science” as an anti-God philosophy. A growing number of scientists and theologians no longer see such a conflict between Christianity and science. Many hard-line conservative theologians are appalled at this attempt at reconciliation. They see it as an attack on the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible at its very foundation. One of the first theological problems they point out is explaining millions of years of pain and suffering before the Fall. This is a valid criticism, but it may also be a false dilemma.
One possible explanation is that the Fall could have been a space-time event which led to all sin and death, both before and after the event itself. In numerous instances, Lewis states that God exists beyond time. If this is so, God knows all that has happened, is happening, and will happen. Is it possible that deep history itself even reflects the fall of humankind? If so, we may have an explanation for animal suffering before the Fall. However, I don’t find this entirely satisfying, because the question of why animal suffering should exist because of our species fallen nature isn’t answered. There are a number of different theodicies and theories that relate to Darwinian evolution and the Bible. If this intrigues you, I would encourage you to look some up or chat with me sometime. It’s hard work, but it’s worth exploring.
One possible explanation is that the Fall could have been a space-time event which led to all sin and death, both before and after the event itself. In numerous instances, Lewis states that God exists beyond time. If this is so, God knows all that has happened, is happening, and will happen. Is it possible that deep history itself even reflects the fall of humankind? If so, we may have an explanation for animal suffering before the Fall. However, I don’t find this entirely satisfying, because the question of why animal suffering should exist because of our species fallen nature isn’t answered. There are a number of different theodicies and theories that relate to Darwinian evolution and the Bible. If this intrigues you, I would encourage you to look some up or chat with me sometime. It’s hard work, but it’s worth exploring.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Are you ready?...
“for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God…” –Romans 3:23
As Paul wrote in Romans, we all do fall short. We are sinners and will continue to be sinners all our life, no matter how hard we try. So what about when we leave this life here on earth? Will we be ready to immediately enter into heaven?
According to what the Bible says and what Lewis writes, no one is ready for heaven. What is this “readiness” being based upon; The fact that we are sinners here on earth? But Jesus died on the cross to release us from our sins, aren’t we “readied” for heaven if we believe in him then? John 3:16 says, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” Is this eternal life gained immediately after we die? Is there a place between heaven and earth that we are “prepared” for heaven?
In Revelation, there is a time after the fifth seal was opened and the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God were crying out and asking God how much longer until God judged and their souls were avenged for. Then Revelation says, “they were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer…” (Revelation 6: 11). Does this look a lot like the Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory or is this more of a time for waiting and not really preparation?Self-Surrender
After looking back on Chapter 6 - Human Pain, I really started having a hard time understanding the idea of self-surrender. Lewis says to fully surrender ourselves to God, we must experience pain. Sometimes even more pain, because as humans, we are selfish and cannot fully give up ourselves. However, what does it mean to fully surrender? Are we mindless creatures, that are being pushed around by a spirit guiding us to where we go next? Or does this mean that based on what we know about ourselves, do we follow our own interests and "gifts that God has given us"? Are we listening to everything God is saying to us or do we have an "educated guess" of what he wants us to do? Lewis talks about how God is willing us, to do things because He knows who we are and what is best for us. However does this look the same for everyone? Just because one good thing might be best for me, might not be better for my roommate. This can be referred back to the third chapter - Divine Goodness. We don't have a good grasp on what is good, maybe moral, but that could be different for everyone. Self-surrender seems very selfish to me. I see it as giving myself up to better myself. Are we not called to love one another more than ourselves? I hate looking at it as bettering myself. I think as Christians we are not to deal with our own pain, but to deal with others. If we want to fully surrender ourselves to God, we must surrender ourselves to each other, to help one another. This can be a tough situation, because we may help others, but who is going to help us? Is this selfish to think? I hope that when we help others, it becomes evident that they need to help us back. Somewhere it is said that we are not meant to be alone in this world. That is why Adam received Eve from God. We are to help one another and to tell them to help one another. Doing this will help surrender ourselves to God and hopefully our selfish pride and arrogance will not realize it, because then we totally ruin the idea of humility.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Cake or Death
As we talked about the reasons for human pain or suffering, I must admit that I had a really hard time focusing on CS Lewis – my mind kept straying to a sketch by British comedian Eddy Izzard.
He’d somehow managed to get on the subject of religion and talks about how the Spanish Inquisition would never have worked with the Church of England, because it would essentially boil down to a question of tea and cake with the vicar or, well, death.
"Cake or death?"
"Eh, cake please."
"Very well! Give him cake!"
"Oh, thanks very much. It's very nice."
"You! Cake or death?"
“Uh, cake for me, too, please."
"Very well! Give him cake, too! We're gonna run out of cake at this rate. You! Cake or death?"
"Uh, death, please. No, cake! Cake! Cake, sorry. Sorry..."
"You said death first, uh-uh, death first!"
"Well, I meant cake!"
"Oh, all right. You're lucky I'm Church of England!"
And so on. If pain is God’s megaphone, then a question of “Cake or death” is not likely to get anyone’s attention – the answer is easy and unlikely to cause anyone a sleepless night. For it to have an impact on our life, it has to intrude on our daily life, through all the stuff that we fill our days with and stop us in our tracks. The act of choosing cake over death won’t really impact our lives much beyond chewing on bits of frosted funfetti.
I realize that this is pretty ridiculous – Cake or Death and the Problem of Pain. Just the question Cake or Death is ridiculous, never mind the juxtaposition. But if it is a question that really matters to me, I want to spend time on my answer, to really consider the options, fully weigh the pros and cons, make a few lists, and all that jazz. You cannot justify all the pain and problems of this world so simply, but if the point of pain really is a wakeup call, it has to be a bit louder than cake or death.
Focusing on My Loss
After watching the movie on Jack and Joy in class the other day, and the discussion that went along with it, i have been thinking a lot about my reaction to the deaths of loved ones around me. Lewis points out himself his very selfish thinking towards the end of Joy's life. He shares that once Joy is gone, he is going to continue to remember her the way he wants to, and in a selfish and comforting way. He also shares that the most hurtful part of her death would be that he no longer has her in his presence. That he wouldn't be cared for and loved by her like he so desperately wanted. As i look back on my life, and the death of my grandma and grandpa, i now see how selfish my suffering was at the time. When i was in sixth grade my grandmother was diagnosed with cancer and passed away only a month later. And since she lived in Iowa and i was in California, I never got the chance, in such a short amount of time, to travel to iowa and tell her i love her, or even good-bye. I can remember sitting in my living room with my father and being very mad at God. I couldn't believe that He wouldn't even give me a chance to say good-bye. I felt like i wasn't asking for much. I sobbed for most of that night. Yet, i wasn't crying for my grandmother, who was now healthy and painless, and in heaven with God. I was crying for myself. The fact that i could no longer visit her and be loved by her each summer when i visited my relatives in iowa. Had i been focused on my grandmother's best interest i would have been joyful that she was in heaven, rather i was focused on my self and my own feelings. Three years later my grandfather passed away. It had been very hard on him to lose his wife, and this left him lonely and sad. Yet, now he no longer had to hurt, and he no longer had to live alone. He was now in heaven with his wife, and more importantly God. Yet, once again i spent a lot of time feeling sorry for myself, and the loss of my grandfather who i was very close too. I had always been told i was so much like my grandfather, and i always felt a special connection with him. Once again i felt like God had robbed me, and was unfair, yet in reality he gave my grandfather exactly what he longed for, and it was selfish of me to think any differently. Today, i remember both my grandparents in the way that i choose. I remember all the great characteristics they had, all of the fun times and memories we shared, and how well they loved me. Is this wrong? Does it make me a selfish person for remembering them in the way that is most comforting to me? Maybe i need to remember that my grandparents also had their faults? I know that is was selfish and wrong for me to be focused on my loss, rather than my grandparents gain, but as for the way i remember them today, i feel like there is nothing wrong with remembering the good times, and forgetting the times that weren't quite so perfect.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
God Create Sin?
While playing 20 questions I was asked, “If you could ask God any one question, what question would it be?” Well, after spending hours in philosophy class, I realized I had many, many questions; therefore, I needed quite a bit of time to think about which one of the many questions I would ask. I answered with, “Why did You (God) create Satan? Why didn’t You stop him from falling from heaven?” We talk about the problem of pain and one of the main solutions we have is that sin entered the world. But the real question I ponder is why did God allow Satan to fall from heaven so that he could become the purest of any evil we know so that he could tempt us so that we could eventually choose Satan over God? God created the heavens and the earth, and He created all creatures within so why the heck did he create such a horrible creature to take all the rest of God’s creation from Him. I believe that God is all-knowing, and He is all-powerful, but I just feel as though we were doomed from the beginning because God created Satan. I look at the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis, and I feel as though the fall wasn’t even their fault because God created Satan to bring sin into the world. When thinking about God creating Satan, I start to wonder if God created Satan, then He created sin, too. The whole thought of Satan and sin being a creation of God is just a crazy idea that I have never really pondered deeply before and have always ignored the subject when it comes to mind. But after spending time deliberating, I don’t feel I have come any further in answering the question. I just don’t understand this aspect of God, and I don’t know that I ever will. Our God is amazing, and I love that He is so complex that I can ask tons of questions, yet never know the answers. I am truly thankful that I have a God who is so much bigger than me! So I guess my only answer to this question is that no answer helps me to be more in awe of who God is!
Jack and Joy
While watching the movie so closely related to A Grief Observed some interesting thoughts popped into my mind. Firstly, I was curious as to if the movie accurately portrayed Lewis' personality. In the film he came across as quite confident and bold. In The Problem of Pain I took Lewis' writings as a confident and bold personality however not nearly as confident and as bold as I thought he came across in the film. I considered him confident and bold while reading The Problem of Pain I viewed him as confident and bold by his strong assertions;however, I didn't view him as quite as bold as he came across in the film because in the book I remember specific instances in which he noted that he was merely stating his opinion and that his opinion could be wrong which led me to believe he was not an audaciously bold person. In the film he came across as audaciously bold in his conversations and especially in his decision to merely have a "legal" marriage to Joy rather than swallowing his pride and marrying her before the church. Lewis' interesting path to marriage leads me to my second thought, maybe, even such a distinguished scholar and thinker such as Lewis, had more sanctification to go through himself than lay persons such as myself may have thought. Myself, and I am sure others, put Lewis on a pedestal as something between being holy somewhere between a distinguished Christian and an angel. I wonder why Lewis did not marry Joy before a church first off. For Lewis to understand how much he loved Joy and how important it was to him and her to marry her was Joy's cancer diagnosis, and Jack's glimpse of losing Joy. Lewis' needing to come so close to losing Joy to decide to marry her made me think he was quite audaciously bold in his convictions. Lewis most likely had strong reasons for not marrying Joy first off, and they could be more noble than my belief that he should have married her initially;however, from what little information I have about Lewis' life, I believe he should have married Joy sooner.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Death to Tigers!
After finishing the reading on animal pain, I found myself pondering animal immortality. However, since it appeared to be a rather vast topic I quickly put a stop to my pondering. Why deal with the headache? Instead I turned my thoughts to animal Mortality. I'm not ready to dive in to whether or not animals are reincarnated or have a special corner in heaven, so why not look at their lives on earth.
What's the difference between an animal life and a human life? Besides the debatable soul argument animals tend to have shorter lives. Yes, there are exceptions like sea turtles and elephants, but most animals, especially domestic animals tend to live between 1o and 2o years. Why is this so? There are probably numerous biological explanations, but lets think on a religious level. Does God want his creatures to live shorter lives? Are animals lives short because we get bored with them after they're not babies anymore? Lewis argued that animal pain is either due to the fall of man or direct corruption from Satan. I'm going to argue that it is due to man's fall so as to not shift the blame. If men cause animals to suffer because we've neglected our stewardship, then perhaps animals are graced with fleeting lives. If a creature doesn't have the capacity to choose life over death and vice-a-versa and is doomed to be under the care of man perhaps it is mercy to let them "die young."
If a man is unsatisfied with his life, he has the choice to end it, whether right or wrong that is for another story. To the extent of my knowledge, animals don't have this particular choice except by accident. Can we really say that Goldy was trying to kill herself when she jumped out of her bowl? (Not that I'd blame a gold fish for wanting to leave her bowl to go to that vast, heavenly sea) Anyway, because man has strayed and caused animals to suffer, perhaps God has provided an outlet for these animals where they can leave their pain behind and move on to nothingness or a great heavenly wonders.
What's the difference between an animal life and a human life? Besides the debatable soul argument animals tend to have shorter lives. Yes, there are exceptions like sea turtles and elephants, but most animals, especially domestic animals tend to live between 1o and 2o years. Why is this so? There are probably numerous biological explanations, but lets think on a religious level. Does God want his creatures to live shorter lives? Are animals lives short because we get bored with them after they're not babies anymore? Lewis argued that animal pain is either due to the fall of man or direct corruption from Satan. I'm going to argue that it is due to man's fall so as to not shift the blame. If men cause animals to suffer because we've neglected our stewardship, then perhaps animals are graced with fleeting lives. If a creature doesn't have the capacity to choose life over death and vice-a-versa and is doomed to be under the care of man perhaps it is mercy to let them "die young."
If a man is unsatisfied with his life, he has the choice to end it, whether right or wrong that is for another story. To the extent of my knowledge, animals don't have this particular choice except by accident. Can we really say that Goldy was trying to kill herself when she jumped out of her bowl? (Not that I'd blame a gold fish for wanting to leave her bowl to go to that vast, heavenly sea) Anyway, because man has strayed and caused animals to suffer, perhaps God has provided an outlet for these animals where they can leave their pain behind and move on to nothingness or a great heavenly wonders.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Why did God allow the Holocaust?
This question of why God would allow the Holocaust has been in my mind ever since spring break of last year. The choir took a trip to the Czech Republic, Austria and Poland and we went to the concentration camps. I cannot comprehend how people could see others in such pain and not feel guilty about it? I do not understand how God would let so many people suffer and die? Why did he not step in an prevent it? Was he just allowing us to have human free will? Was it just an object lesson?
I don't have answers to this, I just have thoughts. God, as we know him, is supposed to be a loving God. He is a God who works miracles. He is a God who has given us free will so that we can become better people by learning from our mistakes. He doesn't fix everything for us or we really wouldn't have free will because we would never have to suffer the consequences from of our actions.
So what does this have to do with the Holocaust? Maybe it was just to show the utter depravity of people. Those who have gone so far to push God out of the way and set themselves up as God. Nazi Germany decided that it wanted to be God. It had rejected God so much that it claimed the right to rid the earth of undesireables. They went to the utter extreme of freewill. Free will of taking power and setting themselves up as gods. Given the choice of preserving life or ending it, they chose power to end the lives they thought were just taking away from the life of those who were worthy.
Still ,why would God allow this? Can God really be real and good as we know him and let this happen...again and again? Could it be that God is saying this is what happens when you stray too far from me and put your faith in man instead of God? Would that not mean that it was just an object lesson? Maybe God is allowing us the opportunity to see him contrasted to humans. If we trust in an all powerful God he can and will protect us, but if we trust in man (fallen as he is) we will be subjected to the most excruciating pain and anguish. It is like Hell on earth. Chosing human leadership is hell, pushing God out of the way. It causes suffering. But to be with God is to know heaven. Maybe then the Holocaust was a demonstration of hell, brought about by the depravity of man. Again, I don't have answers. But I cannot help but believe in God as loving and providing. I have seen it and felt it. But I cannot answer why he would allow such atrocities. Freewill choses hell. And people's choices affect everyone around them.
Do we, in chosing hell, chose it for other people as well?
I don't have answers to this, I just have thoughts. God, as we know him, is supposed to be a loving God. He is a God who works miracles. He is a God who has given us free will so that we can become better people by learning from our mistakes. He doesn't fix everything for us or we really wouldn't have free will because we would never have to suffer the consequences from of our actions.
So what does this have to do with the Holocaust? Maybe it was just to show the utter depravity of people. Those who have gone so far to push God out of the way and set themselves up as God. Nazi Germany decided that it wanted to be God. It had rejected God so much that it claimed the right to rid the earth of undesireables. They went to the utter extreme of freewill. Free will of taking power and setting themselves up as gods. Given the choice of preserving life or ending it, they chose power to end the lives they thought were just taking away from the life of those who were worthy.
Still ,why would God allow this? Can God really be real and good as we know him and let this happen...again and again? Could it be that God is saying this is what happens when you stray too far from me and put your faith in man instead of God? Would that not mean that it was just an object lesson? Maybe God is allowing us the opportunity to see him contrasted to humans. If we trust in an all powerful God he can and will protect us, but if we trust in man (fallen as he is) we will be subjected to the most excruciating pain and anguish. It is like Hell on earth. Chosing human leadership is hell, pushing God out of the way. It causes suffering. But to be with God is to know heaven. Maybe then the Holocaust was a demonstration of hell, brought about by the depravity of man. Again, I don't have answers. But I cannot help but believe in God as loving and providing. I have seen it and felt it. But I cannot answer why he would allow such atrocities. Freewill choses hell. And people's choices affect everyone around them.
Do we, in chosing hell, chose it for other people as well?
Worthy of Life
Worthy of Life
Bleak. That is the word that best describes the mood the weather pressed upon me as I exited the bus. The frigid air felt as though it blew right through my body, freezing each cell, turning my limbs to ice. The snow, which pelted my face, attached itself to the patches of white already on the ground, gradually expanding until it connected the whole world in hues of white and grey. Clumps of brown, dead grass peeked through the snow, a reminder of the death that had made this place famous. The tears that formed in my eyes solidified as they leaked down my frozen cheeks. Somehow I feel that if it had been a bright, sunshine-filled day, green grass below my feet and blue sky above me, the truth of this world I had found myself in would have been lost to me. The pain that emanated in this place, the pain that seemed so recent, though it happened decades ago, would have just slipped by me unnoticed had it not been an icy winter day. It would have been just another historical place, another fact in my mind placed there by various history teachers over the years. Instead, my emotional intuition had been activated and the place became more than the legend I had considered it before: real, but distant like a story. It was more than just words and statistics, but it was real, an undeniable atrocity, one of the grossest eras in all human history. Here I was in Poland. March, 2010. Auschwitz. Decades after World War II, the lives of the innocent, brutally subjected to Hell on earth, still cried out. Their plight became real to me in the most minimal sense, just by the effects the weather had on my flesh. The stage had been set, the mood achieved, and here I stood, bundled in layers of fabric, a luxury denied the victims of the Auschwitz camps. I walked through camp I, through the gate, past dozens of barracks, each of which held about a thousand people, cramped together, in beds that resembled cattle stalls. Yet these were people considered worth less than cattle. I walked through buildings that were storehouses the uncountable amount of belongings which prisoners had brought with them. Hair brushes. Shaving utensils. Bowls. Dolls. Shoes. Human hair. I had already been fighting sickness, but at the sight of the human hair, which was used to make blankets for soldiers, it was all I could do to stay on my feet. All the items were piled high, each a mountainous category, only a portion of total confiscated during the days of the camps. Among the numerous suitcases, I saw a name I recognized. Meyer. The knot in stomach became more tangled as I thought about how I had had family on both sides of the war. I had had family who had fought to support the man who had deemed these innocent people to be worth less than livestock, unworthy to live. These people who had lives like we do. Had jobs, families, struggles, talents. Felt happiness, sadness, fear, love, like we do. But they were thrown into the fiery furnace and they were consumed. Those deemed unfit for physical work were sent immediately to the gas chambers. Later, others prisoners would carry their corpses to the crematoriums which produced as, layering the ground in a constant snow, not composed of frozen water molecules. Others were shot in front of cement slabs. Others died in starvation cells. Others died from lack of nutrients or of the cold or of over work or of having lost the desire to live. What made them to be unworthy to live in the eyes of Nazi-Germany, I cannot understand. My anger at the evil the human race is capable of, my sadness of the beautiful lives destroyed, the hope that few found…all these combine in me to create a stoicism. I am overwhelmed with emotion, but which I cannot tell. All I can think of is my guilt at standing here, making a spectacle of the pain which engulfed millions. And yet in that pain, of the few that survived the camps, some had a joy that overcame all the darkness they had been through. If their joy can survive hell like that, the pain that I am engulfed in is also surmountable. I feel guilty when I think about how my own pain has consumed me, when I went through nothing compared to these people. How could anyone do something as gross as this to any living-being. How could any human being believe that another is so different from them that they are not worthy of even the most simple things? What is it that qualifies humans worthy or unworthy of life? In my anger I would say that those who had decided who was unworthy of life were the only ones worthy of the sentence to appointed to others. But thankfully, I am not the one who make the decision of who is worthy of life and who is worthy of living hell.
Bleak. That is the word that best describes the mood the weather pressed upon me as I exited the bus. The frigid air felt as though it blew right through my body, freezing each cell, turning my limbs to ice. The snow, which pelted my face, attached itself to the patches of white already on the ground, gradually expanding until it connected the whole world in hues of white and grey. Clumps of brown, dead grass peeked through the snow, a reminder of the death that had made this place famous. The tears that formed in my eyes solidified as they leaked down my frozen cheeks. Somehow I feel that if it had been a bright, sunshine-filled day, green grass below my feet and blue sky above me, the truth of this world I had found myself in would have been lost to me. The pain that emanated in this place, the pain that seemed so recent, though it happened decades ago, would have just slipped by me unnoticed had it not been an icy winter day. It would have been just another historical place, another fact in my mind placed there by various history teachers over the years. Instead, my emotional intuition had been activated and the place became more than the legend I had considered it before: real, but distant like a story. It was more than just words and statistics, but it was real, an undeniable atrocity, one of the grossest eras in all human history. Here I was in Poland. March, 2010. Auschwitz. Decades after World War II, the lives of the innocent, brutally subjected to Hell on earth, still cried out. Their plight became real to me in the most minimal sense, just by the effects the weather had on my flesh. The stage had been set, the mood achieved, and here I stood, bundled in layers of fabric, a luxury denied the victims of the Auschwitz camps. I walked through camp I, through the gate, past dozens of barracks, each of which held about a thousand people, cramped together, in beds that resembled cattle stalls. Yet these were people considered worth less than cattle. I walked through buildings that were storehouses the uncountable amount of belongings which prisoners had brought with them. Hair brushes. Shaving utensils. Bowls. Dolls. Shoes. Human hair. I had already been fighting sickness, but at the sight of the human hair, which was used to make blankets for soldiers, it was all I could do to stay on my feet. All the items were piled high, each a mountainous category, only a portion of total confiscated during the days of the camps. Among the numerous suitcases, I saw a name I recognized. Meyer. The knot in stomach became more tangled as I thought about how I had had family on both sides of the war. I had had family who had fought to support the man who had deemed these innocent people to be worth less than livestock, unworthy to live. These people who had lives like we do. Had jobs, families, struggles, talents. Felt happiness, sadness, fear, love, like we do. But they were thrown into the fiery furnace and they were consumed. Those deemed unfit for physical work were sent immediately to the gas chambers. Later, others prisoners would carry their corpses to the crematoriums which produced as, layering the ground in a constant snow, not composed of frozen water molecules. Others were shot in front of cement slabs. Others died in starvation cells. Others died from lack of nutrients or of the cold or of over work or of having lost the desire to live. What made them to be unworthy to live in the eyes of Nazi-Germany, I cannot understand. My anger at the evil the human race is capable of, my sadness of the beautiful lives destroyed, the hope that few found…all these combine in me to create a stoicism. I am overwhelmed with emotion, but which I cannot tell. All I can think of is my guilt at standing here, making a spectacle of the pain which engulfed millions. And yet in that pain, of the few that survived the camps, some had a joy that overcame all the darkness they had been through. If their joy can survive hell like that, the pain that I am engulfed in is also surmountable. I feel guilty when I think about how my own pain has consumed me, when I went through nothing compared to these people. How could anyone do something as gross as this to any living-being. How could any human being believe that another is so different from them that they are not worthy of even the most simple things? What is it that qualifies humans worthy or unworthy of life? In my anger I would say that those who had decided who was unworthy of life were the only ones worthy of the sentence to appointed to others. But thankfully, I am not the one who make the decision of who is worthy of life and who is worthy of living hell.
The atrocities of human kind.
This is a story/monologue that Nick Rohlf wrote. It deals with slavery, the holocaust, the coloseum, etc. Why would a God who is loving allow people to suffer...
A Moment in Darkness
by Nick Rohlf
The darkness closes in around me. Soon, everything is black. All around me. I can see nothing in any direction. I might be falling through the air. But I think I'm standing still. On...something. But on nothing. Everything is dark, but somehow there is still light. I can see my hand in front of me as though it were a bright, sunny day. Maybe it isn't really dark, but there's just...nothing to see.
After some time... maybe a minute, maybe an eternity... I hear footsteps. Hear is not the right word, exactly. But I know they exist. I turn around, and there is a man in a casual suit coming toward me. He doesn't look like anything special, but for some reason, I have a hard time keeping eye contact.
“Where am I?” I say. “I have to get to class soon...if I miss again, I might fail.”
The man speaks: “We are outside time.”
A slave song begins to play
Suddenly the darkness around me changes. It's still black, but I am somewhere else, and I see things in the darkness. I see a wide, open field. I see slaves working in the fields. Men being whipped by overseers, women picking cotton by hand. One collapses from exhaustion. I cannot bear to look any longer.
Roman imperial music fades in, perhaps with sounds of shouting, cheering, jeering - a music cut from Gladiator maybe?
The darkness changes again. I am at the coliseum. I am...in the crowd...yelling, jeering, thirsty for blood. I smell... I don't want to know what the smell is. There are two men, chained together. A gate opens, revealing a lion...it looks emaciated, but afraid to attack, afraid of the noise of the crowd.
Imperial music fades out, sounds of torment fade in.
The crowd fades...and a thousand other images appear before me, images of torment. Soldiers dying on a battlefield, starving children begging for a meal......a prostitute waiting for work, just so she can eat tonight. Then finally, after what seems like an eternity, the flashing images slow... and stop.
Torment sounds fade out, funeral music fades in.
I am in a cemetary. I see people...I recognize some of them, only they seem...older. Some are crying. It must be a funeral. I look at the gravestone...and wish I had not. It is my own. I dare not look at the date. I turn my back on the gravestone as it fades away, I turn to the man in the suit.
“You must be...God,” I say, with a hint of disgust in my voice.
“I am.” The voice is different this time... stronger. [Trembling knees] It takes all my willpower not to bow before his feet.
“You brought me here...why?”
His voice is back to normal. “Did you not have some questions for me?”
“Well....” I start off slowly. “I wanted to know more about this idea of predestination vs free will...” Suddenly, a great anger wells up inside me. “But obviously there's no such thing as free will. You can see everything. You know what I'm going to do, you know when I'm going to die, and you know whether or not I'm one of the 'elect.'”
“Yes, what of it?”
“You created us. All of us. Humans. How can you possibly pick and choose which ones are marked for salvation? Why not just create those few 'worthy' people, and never bother with the rest of us?”
“None are worthy.” It's that voice again. This time, it is filled with an overwhelming anger and disgust...and just a hint of sadness.
I cannot control myself. My legs become like jelly, and I fall flat before him. This only serves to further my anger. Some moments pass, and I stand as well as I am able. “Yes, so you're the Almighty God, you made us all, you can throw us all into hell if you want. You're just a spoiled child with too many toys. You play with the ones you like and throw the rest out.”
“Is that all you are? Toys?”
“You tell me. You're the one who wrote the rules.”
“Yes, yes I did. And none of you seem able to follow them.” I detect a hint of a smirk.
“Yeah, yeah, I get it. 'None are worthy.' So why do you just pick a few to be your special little pets while the rest rot and die? Oh, yeah, and let's not forget that they don't go against you on their own, you 'harden their hearts,' like with the Pharoah. It's not even their fault.”
“Is that so?”
“Well? Why did you make them if you're just going to force them to disobey you and then judge them for it?”
“Am I forcing you to ask me these questions now?” I feel nothing but hatred towards this divine puppet-master. “You tell me. You have all the answers. You have your little time-line. For all I know, you wrote that time-line yourself, and we're just your little dolls acting it out.”
Traditional Jewish hymn fades in, juxtaposed against a crackling inferno.
The blackness around me begins to shift. I find myself in what must have been Krystallnacht. I see burning synagogues, burning homes, a jewelry shop with broken windows. I see people running about, some chasing, some fleeing.
“These are my people,” says that most despicable of creatures. “Is this my will?”
“You knew it would happen. Don't lie. You knew it back when you created the first human. You knew it would come to this.”
Sounds fade out.
The cries of the tortured fade from around me. Again, nothing but darkness.
“Yes. I knew it would come to this. I knew what humanity was capable of doing. I know what lies in the future. I know every evil that every human has ever, or will ever, commit against me and against one another.”
“So you know us, huh? You know what we're capable of, and you know we can't stop. But for some reason, you just pick a few. You just show mercy to your chosen people.”
“Israel was my chosen people. Israel turned her face from me long ago.”
I cannot help but feel...pity...for this great manipulator of humanity. But I know I am driving the dagger home, and if I faltered, even for a moment, I would not be able to continue. I have to go on.
“It's easy for you to judge us. You follow your will all the time. That's obvious. You know what your will is. But we don't. And even if we did, why should we work our entire lives, for something someone else wants, so we might be saved? Oh, wait, it doesn't matter if we work. Works don't matter. Ephesians 2:8-9. So it's just some sort of divine lottery, huh? We just have to have faith that maybe you'll pick our number and we'll get saved, and to hell with the rest. Literally.”
There is a pause. “Would it comfort you to know your eternal fate?”
I cannot believe the audacity of this man who dares to call himself God, dangling my fate in front of me like a fisherman's baited hook. I let all my anger and hatred surge forth to deliver the final blow. “I already know it well enough. If I had died when I was a believer, I was always one of the elect. If I died right now, I was never one of the elect, and my faith never mattered. If I become a believer again, I was always one of the elect. It's easy for you to make this decision, knowing everything. Try knowing nothing.”
God is...silent. I have beaten him. There is nothing more he can say to me. How could he, an all-knowing God, so casually pass judgment on someone he had created? Someone who couldn't see the big picture, someone who couldn't possibly know his will?
God appears to shrink before me. I sneer down at him, in triumph. I even dare to look him in the eyes. He dares not return my gaze. Then...something happens. A figure steps out of him. A living, breathing person just pulls himself out of him and stands next to him. This figure now stands next to God, wearing nothing but a tattered cloth. I look upon his face. I see... the faces of the plantation slaves. I see the faces of prisoners in the coliseum. I see the Jews from Krystallnacht. I see myself. I see a million other faces, all on this face. But it's still his face. It looks downcast, broken.
God speaks. Again, in that voice. “I keep my Word.”
I do not bother to resist. I fall on my knees. I do not hold back the tears that soon follow. Through my tears, I continue to question Him. “You... you were human. You died for us. Then why did you,” I go on, looking at the other Him, “why did you choose only a few to be saved?”
He in chains remains silent. “I see it all,” said God. “I know it all. I know how it began; I know how it will end. That doesn't mean I will it.”
At this, my heart becomes as frozen as the time around me. He doesn't will it? But everything is God's will. Isn't it?
Hymn fades in again, with the inferno, but this time the crackling fire overpowers the music - the fire grows louder, louder, until the music cannot even be heard, til the actor almost has to shout.
The darkness changes again; we are back in the flaming streets of Berlin. I see a man, a normal, German civilian, take a club and crush it against the skull of a fleeing child. God...the second one...He feels the blow, he crumples to the ground, alongside the fallen victim. God, in the suit...he watches in silence...he doesn't fall, but I know he feels it too. I can see it in his eyes.
The sounds fade out. Darkness slowly lifts, slowly, as the actor remains on the ground, motionless, sobbing involuntarily.
The camp fades around me. The black fades around me. And there I sit, at my desk, sobbing. “I'm sorry,” I say, and for a moment, I wonder if anyone heard me. Only for a moment.
A Moment in Darkness
by Nick Rohlf
The darkness closes in around me. Soon, everything is black. All around me. I can see nothing in any direction. I might be falling through the air. But I think I'm standing still. On...something. But on nothing. Everything is dark, but somehow there is still light. I can see my hand in front of me as though it were a bright, sunny day. Maybe it isn't really dark, but there's just...nothing to see.
After some time... maybe a minute, maybe an eternity... I hear footsteps. Hear is not the right word, exactly. But I know they exist. I turn around, and there is a man in a casual suit coming toward me. He doesn't look like anything special, but for some reason, I have a hard time keeping eye contact.
“Where am I?” I say. “I have to get to class soon...if I miss again, I might fail.”
The man speaks: “We are outside time.”
A slave song begins to play
Suddenly the darkness around me changes. It's still black, but I am somewhere else, and I see things in the darkness. I see a wide, open field. I see slaves working in the fields. Men being whipped by overseers, women picking cotton by hand. One collapses from exhaustion. I cannot bear to look any longer.
Roman imperial music fades in, perhaps with sounds of shouting, cheering, jeering - a music cut from Gladiator maybe?
The darkness changes again. I am at the coliseum. I am...in the crowd...yelling, jeering, thirsty for blood. I smell... I don't want to know what the smell is. There are two men, chained together. A gate opens, revealing a lion...it looks emaciated, but afraid to attack, afraid of the noise of the crowd.
Imperial music fades out, sounds of torment fade in.
The crowd fades...and a thousand other images appear before me, images of torment. Soldiers dying on a battlefield, starving children begging for a meal......a prostitute waiting for work, just so she can eat tonight. Then finally, after what seems like an eternity, the flashing images slow... and stop.
Torment sounds fade out, funeral music fades in.
I am in a cemetary. I see people...I recognize some of them, only they seem...older. Some are crying. It must be a funeral. I look at the gravestone...and wish I had not. It is my own. I dare not look at the date. I turn my back on the gravestone as it fades away, I turn to the man in the suit.
“You must be...God,” I say, with a hint of disgust in my voice.
“I am.” The voice is different this time... stronger. [Trembling knees] It takes all my willpower not to bow before his feet.
“You brought me here...why?”
His voice is back to normal. “Did you not have some questions for me?”
“Well....” I start off slowly. “I wanted to know more about this idea of predestination vs free will...” Suddenly, a great anger wells up inside me. “But obviously there's no such thing as free will. You can see everything. You know what I'm going to do, you know when I'm going to die, and you know whether or not I'm one of the 'elect.'”
“Yes, what of it?”
“You created us. All of us. Humans. How can you possibly pick and choose which ones are marked for salvation? Why not just create those few 'worthy' people, and never bother with the rest of us?”
“None are worthy.” It's that voice again. This time, it is filled with an overwhelming anger and disgust...and just a hint of sadness.
I cannot control myself. My legs become like jelly, and I fall flat before him. This only serves to further my anger. Some moments pass, and I stand as well as I am able. “Yes, so you're the Almighty God, you made us all, you can throw us all into hell if you want. You're just a spoiled child with too many toys. You play with the ones you like and throw the rest out.”
“Is that all you are? Toys?”
“You tell me. You're the one who wrote the rules.”
“Yes, yes I did. And none of you seem able to follow them.” I detect a hint of a smirk.
“Yeah, yeah, I get it. 'None are worthy.' So why do you just pick a few to be your special little pets while the rest rot and die? Oh, yeah, and let's not forget that they don't go against you on their own, you 'harden their hearts,' like with the Pharoah. It's not even their fault.”
“Is that so?”
“Well? Why did you make them if you're just going to force them to disobey you and then judge them for it?”
“Am I forcing you to ask me these questions now?” I feel nothing but hatred towards this divine puppet-master. “You tell me. You have all the answers. You have your little time-line. For all I know, you wrote that time-line yourself, and we're just your little dolls acting it out.”
Traditional Jewish hymn fades in, juxtaposed against a crackling inferno.
The blackness around me begins to shift. I find myself in what must have been Krystallnacht. I see burning synagogues, burning homes, a jewelry shop with broken windows. I see people running about, some chasing, some fleeing.
“These are my people,” says that most despicable of creatures. “Is this my will?”
“You knew it would happen. Don't lie. You knew it back when you created the first human. You knew it would come to this.”
Sounds fade out.
The cries of the tortured fade from around me. Again, nothing but darkness.
“Yes. I knew it would come to this. I knew what humanity was capable of doing. I know what lies in the future. I know every evil that every human has ever, or will ever, commit against me and against one another.”
“So you know us, huh? You know what we're capable of, and you know we can't stop. But for some reason, you just pick a few. You just show mercy to your chosen people.”
“Israel was my chosen people. Israel turned her face from me long ago.”
I cannot help but feel...pity...for this great manipulator of humanity. But I know I am driving the dagger home, and if I faltered, even for a moment, I would not be able to continue. I have to go on.
“It's easy for you to judge us. You follow your will all the time. That's obvious. You know what your will is. But we don't. And even if we did, why should we work our entire lives, for something someone else wants, so we might be saved? Oh, wait, it doesn't matter if we work. Works don't matter. Ephesians 2:8-9. So it's just some sort of divine lottery, huh? We just have to have faith that maybe you'll pick our number and we'll get saved, and to hell with the rest. Literally.”
There is a pause. “Would it comfort you to know your eternal fate?”
I cannot believe the audacity of this man who dares to call himself God, dangling my fate in front of me like a fisherman's baited hook. I let all my anger and hatred surge forth to deliver the final blow. “I already know it well enough. If I had died when I was a believer, I was always one of the elect. If I died right now, I was never one of the elect, and my faith never mattered. If I become a believer again, I was always one of the elect. It's easy for you to make this decision, knowing everything. Try knowing nothing.”
God is...silent. I have beaten him. There is nothing more he can say to me. How could he, an all-knowing God, so casually pass judgment on someone he had created? Someone who couldn't see the big picture, someone who couldn't possibly know his will?
God appears to shrink before me. I sneer down at him, in triumph. I even dare to look him in the eyes. He dares not return my gaze. Then...something happens. A figure steps out of him. A living, breathing person just pulls himself out of him and stands next to him. This figure now stands next to God, wearing nothing but a tattered cloth. I look upon his face. I see... the faces of the plantation slaves. I see the faces of prisoners in the coliseum. I see the Jews from Krystallnacht. I see myself. I see a million other faces, all on this face. But it's still his face. It looks downcast, broken.
God speaks. Again, in that voice. “I keep my Word.”
I do not bother to resist. I fall on my knees. I do not hold back the tears that soon follow. Through my tears, I continue to question Him. “You... you were human. You died for us. Then why did you,” I go on, looking at the other Him, “why did you choose only a few to be saved?”
He in chains remains silent. “I see it all,” said God. “I know it all. I know how it began; I know how it will end. That doesn't mean I will it.”
At this, my heart becomes as frozen as the time around me. He doesn't will it? But everything is God's will. Isn't it?
Hymn fades in again, with the inferno, but this time the crackling fire overpowers the music - the fire grows louder, louder, until the music cannot even be heard, til the actor almost has to shout.
The darkness changes again; we are back in the flaming streets of Berlin. I see a man, a normal, German civilian, take a club and crush it against the skull of a fleeing child. God...the second one...He feels the blow, he crumples to the ground, alongside the fallen victim. God, in the suit...he watches in silence...he doesn't fall, but I know he feels it too. I can see it in his eyes.
The sounds fade out. Darkness slowly lifts, slowly, as the actor remains on the ground, motionless, sobbing involuntarily.
The camp fades around me. The black fades around me. And there I sit, at my desk, sobbing. “I'm sorry,” I say, and for a moment, I wonder if anyone heard me. Only for a moment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)