Lewis' Heaven, and then Love.

When I started reading The Great Divorce, this portrayal of Heaven astounded me. I know Lewis is not saying this is what Heaven really is like, but it astounded me nonetheless. It seems like such a scary place! In my head I saw a large expansion of a field that went on forever. The field almost looked like it had just frosted over, being very pointy and unwelcoming. I put myself in the author’s place and imagined that if I was in this “Heaven,” I wouldn’t dare to move. Then I thought back to the Gray Town and thought, “None of this is appealing!” Maybe that’s what Lewis was trying to get at. If you’re not “meant” for Heaven, maybe the idea is appealing, but in reality it’s not? Most of the Ghosts don’t even want to be there; they just come to find a loved one or something. The Spirits know the wonders and greatness of it all, so they try to convince the Ghosts to stay. But, if it’s not appealing to the Ghosts, if they only see it as a death trap, why would they stay? It’s curious to me that Lewis is suggesting that some people don’t really have a desire to be in Heaven. Maybe they think they do, but that desire is really for something other than Heaven. I don’t know what.

My favorite part of the book was at the end when we were introduced to Sarah Smith. I loved the line in chapter 12 where Lewis says, “And now the abundance of life she has in Christ from the Father flows over into them.” I love the idea of that abundance of life in Christ, and it’s my heart’s desire to experience that abundance in my own life and let it flow out to those around me. It really struck me as I read it. Then, later in the chapter, Sarah says, “What needs could I have…now that I have all? I am full now, not empty. I am in Love Himself, not lonely. Strong, not weak.” That’s where I want to be. In God Himself. In Love.

Seeing Myself As A Ghost

As I read through The Great Divorce, I realized I saw a little of myself in each of the ghosts in each chapter. And to be honest, I feel a little worried and scared about looking at my own reflection of whom I am here on Earth. In Chapter 5, Lewis meets the fat ghost who is just so caught up in religion that he doesn’t truly know Christ. So often I realize how bound I am to the law and try to live a perfect life, but I forget Christ and what He did for me on the cross. I forget that we are to live by grace and faith, not by law. If we were expected to live by law, Christ would never have had to come. In Chapter 8, we meet the woman who is so shameful of herself. She can’t bear going with the Spirit because she sees and feels the extreme distance between the spirits and the ghosts. How often do I fear what others think of me? Almost every day. I could go on and on about how all of the ghosts somehow reflect a bit of my struggles here on Earth, but I have come to conclude after reading the book that our struggles and weaknesses aren’t the problem. Our heart and desire is the problem. In every chapter, the Ghosts and Spirits both had faults; they both made mistakes and fell short. The difference consisted of the Spirits desiring Jesus and the Ghosts desiring themselves and their own wants. As I think about this concept, I wonder where I am on this spiritual journey. If a Spirit were to ask me if I wanted to be in heaven or be in hell doing something I think “I love” to do, I’m not sure which I would choose. After thinking about the different concepts Lewis reveals in The Great Divorce, I wonder if Lewis sees himself in the ghosts as well. Or I wonder if he has met many of “the Ghosts” on his journey on Earth. But overall, the book has allowed God to convict me and help me to understand the importance of getting to know who He is. Loving God is the greatest commandment, and The Great Divorce has redirected my heart back to what Christianity is really all about.

Life as a Backward Extension

In The Great Divorce George Mac Donald tells our narrator that "ye cannot in your Earthly state understand eternity." (GD, 69). He talks about how anyone who is in Heaven will see the valley that they are in and also their life on Earth as an extension of Heaven and that those in Hell will see their lives both in the gray town and on Earth as Hell. He claims that mortals misunderstand this; that when you have the horrible moments on Earth that you believe that no possible reward could be worth the pain you are in or for those who believe that they can take the punishment if only they can have the pleasure of this one sin that the reward will reach back and make life better or the punishment will reach back and ruin the pleasure of the moment.

This is the one thing that is really visible that Lewis and Williams seem to totally agree upon. In Descent into Hell Pauline is tormented throughout her life by an apparition of which she is terrified. Later she learns that this apparition was the embodiment of her decision to help her ancestor. When she meets up with the martyr she is not able to take up his burden on her own, but the doppelganger took the burden for her and she discovered that her fear of herself throughout her life was the way she helped her ancestor. The terror that she had lived in showed itself as something better once she was "saved."

This is something that I would have never considered before reading these two books. I realize that both books are fiction and that much of what is seen in the books is speculation that is not meant to be taken as fact, but the idea is very intriguing. As of right now, I'm not sure what I think about this idea. I think that from the mindset of someone who will end up in Heaven it is something that I would want to believe. To know that for sure everything that you go through in life will be worth it in the end, even seem to you later like it was something good all the time would be a great encouragement to someone. On the other hand, knowing that everything that you did in life will eventually have all of the pleasure sucked out of it by becoming a part of the Hell that you end up in is not a positive thought at all. I guess what I'm wondering about is if it were true is there any indication for mortals of this possibility? Somehow Lewis and Williams both thought of this as a way for Heaven and Hell to work backwards to change life into the best or worst that it could have been, but did either one of them believe that it would happen? Could life turn into just an extension of what is to come in the future?

Child-like Faith

The Great Divorce pg. 40-41.
Spirit: "I will bring you to the land not of questions but of answers, and you shall see the face of God."
Ghost: "Ah but we must all interpret those beautiful words in our own way! For me there is not such thing as a final answer. The free wind of inquiry must always continue to blow through the mind, must it not? 'Prove all things' . . . to travel hopefully is better than to arrive."
(more discussion)
Spirit: "Listen! Once you were a child. Once you knew what inquiry was for. There was a time when you asked questions because you wanted answers, and were glad when you had found them. Become that child again: even now."

When I read these pages, I felt comforted in holding a point of view that I have held since I have been exposed to the adult world. Now I know that I do this too, but there are so many groups and people that are so intent on getting "hard core" answers for everything in life, especially God. They are constantly searching for evidence of who is God, what is he like, why does he do things or allow them to happen . . . even does he exist.

Personally I believe that God encourages us to seek him and seek his wisdom. He even encourages seeking out answers to our doubts--God isn't afraid of doubt--He's the one being that can stand up to any doubt and still remain rock-solid and true. However, He gave us tools we can use to find answers to our questions, such as prayer and the Bible.

I'm really speaking for Christians in this blog as I continue. God gives us answers even here on earth, but they aren't always the answers we want. They can often be vague, mysterious, and what we would say is full of more unanswered questions. However, I don't always see this as a reason to search our whole lives trying to answer questions that are trivial compared to the answer of salvation--Jesus.

Like I said earlier, I see nothing wrong with asking questions and searching for answers--I do it myself. However, so many Christians/people are like the ghost, they are never content with the answers they do receive from God. And sometimes His answer is 'not yet . . . you don't need to know that information yet.' Or sometimes our answers are not scientifically proven, we just have to take God's word.

So far I feel like I've been rambling and all of you are unsure of where I am going. Ultimately there is one answer that so many people, including me, have trouble with hearing and obeying--Child-like faith. We just have to believe. No matter how crazy, mysterious, or questionable God's leading, answers, or Biblical teaching seem, we should see child-like faith as answer to our life questions. Because we don't need to know everything right now, God will show us in time. Maybe we will never get some of our questions answered. But that is not more important than our salvation and trust in the Lord.

Some people see my opinion as simple-minded, and I'm okay with that. I'll keep asking my questions and searching for answers. God will continue to answer me in His own way, whether through the Bible, prayer, revelation, etc. And I will continue attempting to just trust His answers with as much child-like faith as I can.

Heavenly Pain

Today in class we brought up discussions of the pain felt by the Ghosts on their "visit". This led me to thinking more about the very nature of their "heavenly excursion." It's not only the herd of unicorns or the wandering lions, but the entire visit is rife with pain. The Ghosts' existence on this visit is entirely insubstantial--they are incomplete, less real than the Solid People of the realm, the Spirits. Because of this lack of substance, these Ghosts are succeptible to the elements of the realm--the grass beneath their feet is like diamond, the water like moving steel, and if rain were to fall it'd be like "machine-gun bullet" fire. I think these dangers are paled in comparison to the incompleteness of these Ghosts. To be in this heavenly realm and yet be unable to truly be a part of it yet...that's like dying of thirst and being locked out of an oasis is it not? Another essential of this painful heaven pointed out in class is that these Ghosts meet with a Spirit that seems to challenge or bring out an article of their past which is quite painful in itself, but also conjures up greater pain. Is Lewis trying to stress the conversion/acceptance of faith, or the "journey beyond the mountains" is painful and leads to further pain?

Scripture doesn't tell us that the Way will be easy or painless, quite the opposite in fact. Yet we do have triumph in the end and our "suffering" produces eventual "hope" that "does not dissapoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit" (Romans 5:3, 5)

Another essence of this incompleteness I wish to look at lays outside heaven, but our very relation to God. When we are without Christ, we are incomplete, insubstantial. Yet when we belong to Christ, we are complete in His Love and Grace. When we trust in Him, we are being shaped into the people God has made us to be. "Heaven is reality itself. All that is fully real is Heavenly. For all that can be shaken will be shaken and only the unshakeable remains" (70-71). Without God, we can be shaken and broken and reduced to nothingness. Yet when we give ourselves to Him, we belong to that great unshakeable Reality. "The grass withers and the flowers fall but the Word last forevers." Is Lewis trying to stress the joy of living for the Rock? Is this emphasis of incompleteness trying to stress what is left to us without Christ in our lives?

I don't really know what I think of heaven, but I know it's something I don't have to worry about. My trust in God Almighty is enough, my faith in Jesus Christ promises me eternal life. What is eternal life? I believe it's simply being with God forever. To live in the presence of the Eternal Rock for the rest of time, till time itself fades away. So when I die and all the things of this world fade away and "all that can be shaken will be shaken", I will still have the "unshakeable"--I will still have the Love of Jesus Christ.

Personal vs. Locational Hell

In reading Williams' Descent into Hell, I was struck with how similar his portrayal of Hell was to Lewis's in The Problem of Pain. For many people Hell is equivalent with the "underworld," somewhere with great suffering and "nashing of teeth," or an unceasing pit of fire. Neither Williams nor Lewis paint a picture of a literal place with little demons running around stoking the fires under screaming unbelievers for the entertainment of the "Father of Lies." (Forgive me if that was a disturbing and excessively graphic sentence.) I don't know the origins of such views or the demographics of what denominations endorse them. I only know that I have no certainty of what Hell is or is like. It seems to stand to reason that saying sinners get cast into a "lake of fire" is a much better scare tactic than saying they travel into "nothingness." However, I think we underestimate the horror of such emptiness.

This perspective, which is somewhat new to myself, makes me contemplate all the more how much of Hell is created by the person descending into it and if Hell can exist purely within the mind. We could have the debate over whether physical or mental/emotional suffering is more painful, but I'd rather skip that just now. I don't think it needs to be compared when we can all agree that mental and emotional anguish is indeed very uncomfortable. We've all heard melancholy lyrics about being alone in a crowded room. Although cliche, it's true that one does not need to be in a physically uncomfortable setting to be in the midst of great inner torment. So why do we assume that we must have a realm of horrific and literal torture for a "true" Hell. I'm not dismissing this possibility, perhaps Hell is a combination of the worst of the two aspects. However, in light of the great suffering that occurs only within the mind for Wentworth, one must wonder if we truly need the demons and fire for Hell to fulfill its (supposed) purpose.

Wentworth's White Rope

While reading Descent into Hell, one of the things that I was perhaps most disturbed by was Laurence Wentworth's descent into hell. The change in his character from the beginning of the novel to the end is quite striking--and it seemingly occurs with little provocation. When we are first introduced to Wentworth, we learn that he is having dreams that he is descending down a white rope knot by knot. He cannot see where the rope is attached to or where it ends. Even though it is a strange dream, Wentworth is not frightened by it. This seems to suggest that at this point, he is not even aware that he is steadily becoming more self-absorbed and that he feels as though he is in complete control of his life.

The turning point for Wentworth seems to occur when Hugh arrives at Wentworth's house with Adela. Wentworth "felt something jerk in him, as if a knot had been first tied and then suddenly pulled loose (p.39)." This is an interesting way of describing Wentworth's jealousy in regard to the rope dream. The knotted control that he thinks he has over his life is now loosened as he starts to rapidly slide down the white rope. If he had been at all unsure of his feelings for Adela, or "what he would give up for her," he can now have no doubts. As we can see later in the novel, Wentworth eventually gives up his soul for Adela. He creates his own version of her-a kind of succubus that draws him ever more into himself. His dreams now lead him to imagine a companion waiting for him at the end of the rope. As he learns at the end of the novel, he has allowed himself to be deceived. No companion waits at the end of the rope to satisfy him forever-only a black void steadily drawing him downward in endless circles.

In class we discussed whether or not Wentworth could get the rope back. It seems as though this would not be possible. He had numerous chances to turn away from his deception and at some point, it is only logical that his number of chances run out. The last of these occurs on his way to the dinner with Aston Moffatt. Though it is certainly not a healthy emotion, Wentworth's hatred for Moffatt is an emotion that focuses his attention on something other that himself. At this point of his descent, however, it is not enough to draw him completely out of himself. Part of him still believes that something waits for him at the end of the rope to satisfy his desires. It is not long after his last chance that Wentworth completely loses his grip on the rope. Only then does he realize that he really does want the rope, but it is out of his reach. "He could just remember when there had been one moment when a sudden bright flash had parted from him, fleeing swiftly across the sky into its source, and he wanted that moment back(p.220)." (I'm not really sure what this moment was in the book.) This implies that at some point, after a certain number of chances, there is no hope left for salvation. The control that we think we have over our life and the illusions that add to that control will be illuminated by the truth.

Difficult Teaching

Ok, I'll be honest. I haven't read Williams' Descent into Hell however from what I have gathered in class what he says as a descent into hell is earth-shatteringly convicting. From what I understand, Williams has said that a descent into hell is when a person denies who they are and tries to live a life other than the one God has asked them to do. Similar to Orule in Lewis's Till we Have Faces Wentworth has convinced he is something that he is not. The descent into hell is that Orule and Wentworth have convinced themselves that they are something they are not.

When Jesus preached to the masses and told them they must "eat his flesh and drink his blood" to be children of God. He was instructing them to do what they were created to do. The crowd said that teaching was too difficult and then they left. Then, Jesus turns to the two at his side and asked if they were going to stay. Peter replied, "Lord, where else would we go? You alone have the bread of life". The connection to Lewis and Williams I will attempt to make is the masses who thought Christ's teaching was too hard were the ones who denied where the bread of life was-Orule and Wentworth. However, if Orule had a face and if Wentworth had not decended into Hell they would have lived the life Christ laid out for people to live. A life of self-sacrifice, humility, faith, and love. The life of self-sacrifice, humility, faith, and love is where the bread of life is.

The same question lies before myself and all of us each day. Will we choose to live the life Christ laid out for us to live, or will we begin the descent into hell by taking the wide and beaten path that leads to Hell. To eat the flesh and to drink the blood of Christ is no small task. In fact, it will take your life. Honestly. Your creditability, comfort, everything. What will we choose?

To "Bear" One Another's Burdens

One of the main themes in Descent into Hell is when Stanhope takes Pauline’s burden of her doppelganger. Stanhope believes that we are called to literally “carry one another’s burdens (Galatians 6:2).” The belief that someone can carry another person’s burdens or substituted love is accepted by both Charles Williams and C.S. Lewis. I had never heard this verse taken in the context that Williams applies it in his book, Descent into Hell. I have always considered carrying one another’s burdens to be helping a person carry their burden by listening to their words and giving advice, but never to physically take on someone’s burdens. After thinking and discussing this concept, I decided to look at the context of this verse in Galatians.

¹ Brothers and sisters, if someone is caught in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently. But watch yourselves, or you also may be tempted. ² Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. ³ If anyone thinks they are something when they are not, they deceive themselves. ⁴ Each one should test their own actions. Then they can take pride in themselves alone, without comparing themselves to someone else, ⁵ for each one should carry their own load. ⁶Nevertheless, the one who receives instruction in the word should share all good things with their instructor.

-Galatians 6:1-6

If we look at this passage, we see that we are to restore people who are in sin with gentleness, but be careful to be tempted. Paul then says that we are to carry each other’s burdens, and in this way we will fulfill the law of Christ. I see this passage saying that we are to help, guide, and love each other when someone is burdened with sin. The law of Christ is to love each other; therefore, by helping each other, we love each other. In verse 5, it says for each one should carry their own load, not others carrying the load for them. After looking at this passage, I feel as though Williams and Lewis may have taken this verse out of context. I believe that God has placed a burden in our life so that WE can turn to Him and allow Him to overcome our burden within us. If we are to always give each other our burdens, we aren’t going to look to God to bear our burdens, but to others. I agree that we are supposed to love each other and help each other carry the burdens of our lives, but I fully believe the only way we can overcome a burden is through the bearer of all things, Jesus Christ.

Damn Pons Asinorum

A John Doe Preamble

What a bridge of asses C.S. Lewis has created (or rather unearthed). Granted, a quick once over of any chapter in the Problem of Pain is clearly a foolish waste of time. However--and to my disdain--after:

• Reading the chapter "Human Wickedness" thrice.
• Placing the class study-guide within effortless arms reach.
• Google searching every Lewis-ism my pathetic vocabulary lacks.
• Jotting down extensive notes and outlines into simple people vernacular.

this chapter continues to twist my brain fibers into a well woven braid of clusterfucktivity. Thankfully according to Lewis my brain braid is proof of my progression toward enlightenment, and constant doubt and frustration over this damn Pons Asinorum is the only way I can begin to escape the fools paradise where so many have settled into stagnant, lukewarm existence.

A Brief Recapitulation

Unfortunately the limited conditions encasing this blog require a chain of assumed notions, and before delving into questions and musings concerning human wickedness these notions must be established and understood (at least to some degree).

Assumption number 1: Humanity is dependent on God.
Assumption number 2: God requires perfection.
Assumption number 3: Humanity is not perfect.

A deductible conclusion: Humanity needs to change. Somehow...
A reasonable question: But why?

Good, we're all caught up. Now that the foundation is set, the dissection can begin.

A Mild Dissection

Alright...uh...

This is more difficult than I anticipated.

I guess I can reiterate the question: Why does humanity need to change?

Lewis answers this with what he believes to be an obvious, Christian-like response. "[Because] we have used our free will to become very bad." However, humanity (being rather stupid) has somehow contrived an ideology of denial. In other words: morality has become relative. In other-other words: Bad doesn't exist.

A reasonable question: But why doesn't humanity acknowledge their innate "badness"?

Lewis dishes out two primary reasons.

(Notice: As a reminder for personal application, I will now switch to a first person perspective.)

Reason number 1: I have developed a warped understanding of kindness.

I have constructed polarized views on kindness and cruelty. In other words, I have convinced myself that kindness is only really good and cruelty is only really bad. With this mindset, I am quick to categorize myself. Of course, I sleep easier knowing that I am kind. Therefore, I must be kind, right? According to Lewis, this generalization isn't quite kosher and my grounds of reasoning are faulty. Ignorantly, I console myself in the fallacy that benevolence is easy. I ostracize cruelty from myself and construct a universe of pure kindness. I think to myself, "I haven't hurt anybody, so I must be kind!" I immediately feel better about myself. At this point, Lewis would point out that my thought process is warped. Instead I must think, "I haven't hurt anybody, but I also haven't helped anybody." I have not sacrificed anything. I've only removed myself from the problem. Therefore, I am not kind.

A deductible conclusion: I must establish a new understanding of kindness.

Reason number 2: I have developed a warped understanding of morality.

I have linked the negative feeling of shame with the act of doing something immoral. In other words, I have convinced myself that the demise of shame will bring about the extinction of morality. With this mindset, I gradually reduce my innate moral discernment. I fudge the lines between what is right and what is wrong. Of course, I sleep easier knowing that I am doing more good than bad. Therefore, I must be good, right? Lewis again reiterates that this generalization is faulty. Ignorantly, I remove my inhibitions and comfortably share my shame with others. Soon I console myself with the realization that my friends also feel a similar shame. I eliminate my individual shame and construct a universe of corporate guilt. I think to myself, "If everyone is shameful, no one is shameful!" I immediately feel at ease. Lewis, again the voice of reason, would remind me that I've twisted reality. Instead I must think, "Everyone is shameful, then everyone is innately bad." I have not become more good. I've only ignored immorality through my comfort in numbers. Therefore, I am immoral. Therefore, I am not good.

A deductible conclusion: I must establish a new understanding of morality.

Granted, admitting my wickedness as a part of fallen humanity doesn't give me the necessary change I expressed above (which leads to my perfection, which God requires, on whom I am dependent). However, this new understanding readjusts my focus. I comprehend the bad. My next step is to comprehend the good (This is apparently the gospel--I'm not sure If I'm convinced just yet).

An Expired Mind

I'm going to be honest, this Pons Asinorum is a bitch. Four hours of writing later and my brain is once again braided (perhaps a little too tightly). All this thinking, and yet I've merely rephrased the words of C.S. Lewis. These baby steps don't show me much enlightenment and I'm still not convinced of my innate badness. At this point, Agnosticism seemed pretty alluring. Then again, it always has.

abs.

Tech-NO-logy

Technology is consistently on the rise. Nowadays a person can look around and see 10 year olds carrying a cell phone and text messaging all their friends. My thought about this is: What is our society coming to?! Instead of face-to-face conversations, people stare at a small screen which says, “hey gurl ur hot.” Where has the genuine affection for others gone? Will affection soon fade out of our society or will more and more of our affection be sent through email and text messaging? Will we soon forget how to interact with others at a personal level?

I sure hope we never get to this point but the more I think about how much our lives are being changed due to technology, this nightmare may soon become a reality.

The Beauty of Orual

One thing that really struck me in Till We Have Faces was the beauty of Orual. On the outside, no one would call her beautiful, but when she put on the veil, many noticed the beauty of her voice. A particular time comes to mind when Trunia came to Glome in the night in Chapter 17.

“Who are you?” said I, wrenching my hand free and leaping back as it I had touched a snake. “Come out and show yourself.” My thought was that it must be a lover of Redival’s, and that Batta was playing bawd as well as jailer.
A slender, tall man stepped out. “A suppliant,” he said, but with a merriment in his voice that did not sound like supplication. “And one who never let a pretty girl go without a kiss.”
He’d have had an arm around my neck in a moment if I hadn’t avoided him. Then he saw my dagger point twinkle in the moonlight, and laughed.
“You’ve good eyes if you can see beauty in this face,” said I, turning it on him to make sure he saw the blank wall of the veil.
“Only good ears, sister,” said he. “I’ll bet a girl with a voice like yours is beautiful.”
The whole adventure was, for such a woman as I, so unusual that I almost had a fool’s wish to lengthen it. The very world was strange that night. But I came to my senses.

I wonder if part of Orual liked using the veil to hide her hideousness and feign beauty. Certainly there were many rumors circulating about what kind of face lie behind the veil. It seems to me that part of her did enjoy that mysteriousness she could exude. With the veil, some people thought of her as beautiful. In the scene above, Trunia remarks on the beauty of her voice. Later in Chapter 18, Trunia even proposes that they get married. Orual had never had that before; someone commenting on a beautiful trait she possessed. She was so used to being Orual – the ugly one. “The whole adventure was, for such a woman as I, so unusual that I almost had a fool’s wish to lengthen it. The very world was strange that night.” Orual was experiencing something new and different – the world the Psyche always had, but that Orual was never a part of: being loved for beauty. But, she didn’t stay in that world. “I came to my senses,” she says. As if that thrill of being loved and being desirable is a shallow and superficial emotion. She never lets herself really feel that again. Maybe it's because she doesn't want to be hurt again, like she felt hurt by Psyche?

Orual's Many Faces

In reading Till We Have Faces, I was struck by the seeming complexity of Orual's character. In the beginning of the book, Orual is simply Orual. Her love is almost pure for those around her. Her love for Psyche is so deep, in fact, that she wishes to be Psyche's "real mother," lover, and "full sister(p.22)." This pure love, however, slowly transforms into something not so pure. Orual becomes jealous of Psyche and the fact that Psyche doesn't even seem to need her when Psyche is about to die.

After Orual forces Psyche to disobey her husband and Orual becomes queen, she begins to refer to herself as if she was not fully herself. I found it strange that she would say, for example, that if she could vanish into the Queen, "the gods would almost be cheated (p.201)." Why does she say such things and refer to herself as two different people? Perhaps Lewis was trying to flesh out her character more. It seems like maybe the "Orual part" of Orual could represent her guilt, her past, her weakness, and her ugliness.

The "Queen part" of Orual, on the other hand, might represent her strength. While she serves as queen, she wears the veil that covers her face. Orual describes how with her veil, she becomes "something very mysterious and awful (p.229)." This gives her power over others and a respect that she had not known while others could see her ugliness. Orual seems to use focusing on this powerful part of herself as a means of coping with her guilt. She tries hard to suppress "Orual" and become completely the "Queen."

Toward the end of the book Orual also calls herself Ungit. I'm not sure that I totally understand what this meant other than the fact that this was maybe the part of her character that didn't really care about the welfare of her people. Orual says that "to say that I was Ungit meant that I was as ugly in soul as she; greedy, blood-gorged (p.281-282)." This realization helps her to recognize how selfish she is and allows her to move toward becoming less selfish.

The part of Orual's character that I think I understand the least, is at the end of the book when she is called Psyche. At this point, she has come back to having a pure, selfless love for Psyche. Perhaps, then, this meant that Orual had become like Psyche in her character--the guilt was gone and her soul had been perfected.

Psyche as a Sort of Savior Figure

A Christian metaphor in a retold pagan myth?

I realize Lewis’ purpose in writing Till We Have Faces was not to draw parallels to the Christian faith. However, there is one comparison that seemed far too obvious for me to leave unmentioned: that of Psyche as a savior figure. Though mortal, there is an aspect of godliness in her that makes people treat her as if she is immortal. They call her “a goddess. . .Ungit herself in mortal shape” (32).

She is not just a goddess in physical appearance but is also thought to have a healing/miraculous touch. A woman meets her on the roadside and asks her to touch her so that her baby might have good health. And, later, when the plague haunts Glome, all the sick come to the palace begging for her healing. “They fell at her feet and kissed her feet and the edge of her robe and her shadow and the ground where she had trodden. And still she touched and touched. There seemed to be no end of it; the crowd increased instead of diminishing” (32). Similarly, Jesus worked among crowds of people, healing those who were hurting with his mere touch.
The people left offerings for her outside the palace, myrtle branches, garlands, honeycakes, and pigeons (33). Interestingly enough, palm branches were laid at Jesus’ feet as well. But, then the tides change in the stories of both savior figures . . . from worship and reverence to slander and scorn.

Not long after the “healing” episode at the palace, the people turn against Psyche, calling her the “Accursed” and throwing stones at her. In Orual’s words, Psyche “healed them, and blessed them, and took their filthy disease upon [herself]. And these are their thanks” (39). It is soon demanded by Ungit that Psyche be sacrificed for the sake of the people. The King has no argument. After all, “It’s only sense that one should die for many” (61). The same people that fell at Jesus’ feet similarly turned against him, mocking him, despising him, and demanding his death.

Psyche, when accused, is calm and collected. Instead of displaying anger towards her accusers, she shows grace. Orual wishes Psyche to send a curse on their sister Redival, who though being a blood relative, does not try to defend her sister against death (69). To this, Psyche replies, “No, no. She also does what she doesn’t know.” This wording is similar to what Christ said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Psyche not only seems to forgive her accusers, but she also is willing to die for them. “How can I be the ransom for all Glome unless I die?” (72). She has a strange longing for death, almost as if she were born for the purpose of dying and discovering something greater beyond her life (74). Christ also came willing to die.

After being led up the mountain to the place of sacrifice, Psyche is bound to “the Tree” (85). “They say there was not a tear in her eye, nor did so much as her hand shake. . . she died full of all things that are really good; courage, and patience. . .” In the same way, Christ died on the cross, full of humility. When Orual went up to the mountain to retrieve Pscyhe’s remains, she found living flesh, not bones. Though not dead, Psyche’s sacrifice had resurrected Glome to its old health and prosperity. Similarly, when the women came to Jesus’ tomb, they found he was not dead but alive, his death and resurrection having accomplished our redemption.

I am not sure that Lewis intended any of these parallels. This savior metaphor certainly has some flaws. After all, Psyche is mortal, and she is kept from the privilege of seeing the face of her Lover, who is a god. She has limitations. For instance, when she touched the sick, we don’t really know that she literally healed them. But, at the same time, she possesses many qualities that suggest she has redemptive purposes to fulfill. One such redemptive purpose might even be the eventual change that occurs in Orual. It is only through Psyche’s trials that Orual realizes her own distorted, jealous love and finds her true face. Just as in Christ, we realize the ugliness of our selfish, sinful faces and find our true faces in him (1 Cor. 13; 2 Cor. 3).

"You are not your own."

During D-Groups on Tuesday night, the group that I meet with was studying 1 Corinthians 6. Near the end, Paul is talking about glorifying God through our bodies because it is a "temple of the Holy Spirit within you." In the middle of this point he makes, Paul writes a simple sentence: "You are not your own." This caught my attention, and got me thinking about it, mainly (I think) because of what we have been reading lately in this class.

The first thing this statement from Paul reminds me of is that all of us exist for so much more than just pleasing ourselves. The world doesn't revolve around me, although I often think and act like it does. As Christians, we know that true fulfillment, happiness, comes from giving ourselves to others and to God, not shutting out the world around us and focusing on ourselves. Easy to say, hard to do.

We've read so much in this class that has to do with this, and I will mention just a few of the bigger examples. Lewis, in "The Problem of Pain", sees Hell as total pre-occupation with the self; being totally oblivious to others' wants and needs. In "The Four Loves", Charity is the final aspect of love that helps the other 3 forms of love grow and flourish, such as in Lewis's garden analogy regarding Charity. I view the word "charity" itself as something unselfish; if I do something out of charity, it's for someone or something other than myself, with no regard to my own benefit. In "Till We Have Faces", it becomes clear that Orual's selfishness, particularly her selfish love for Psyche, makes her life rather miserable and also affects the people around her. Not until late in the story is she made aware of self-obsession and its terrible consequences.

From what we've read from "Descent Into Hell", the main example I see of this selfish focus on the self is Lawrence Wentworth, the historian guy. From the little amount I understand about this book, I do see that Wentworth has created his own little world where everyone else but Adela is below him. And from reading the chapters about Wentworth, it's a miserable life he is living. The anger, jealousy, superiority towards others, and even the delusional thoughts he has do not suggest to the reader that he's living a happy, fulfilling life. On the other hand, there is the beautiful scene between Pauline and Stanhope, where Stanhope willingly volunteers to carry the burdens of Pauline. I know there is much more symbolic meaning behind this action, but on the surface, this action by Stanhope seems to be the complete opposite of Wentworth's self-obsession.

Lately, this class and what we have read in it has made me much more aware of the terrible affects of excessive self-love, obsession with oneself: narcissism. I feel our culture, which emphasizes independence and self-betterment through individual effort and work, tends to make this self-focus even worse.

Holy Darkness

Orural wrestles with her beliefs throughout the course of the novel. Is it the Fox's rationality that makes her question? He has mostly brought her up, so it only makes sense that his influence is strongest. Orural's unsure what of what to choose: denial or the desire to believe. Even though Orural believes the gods may be false, she still prays to them. Did Orural believe in the gods as she entered the valley looking for a trace of her sister? That was maybe the nearest Orural was to "seeing" faith (aside from the palace, which she was mostly uncertain about). Psyche seems to always believe. Maybe it's part of what sets her apart and makes her beauty all the more striking. Yet I feel the moment she initially truly believed was when the rain came (110).

I wonder about the "holy darkness" of Ungit. Why should the people want to follow after this? Or maybe they are given no other option. The Priest talks of how Ungit does not have to make sense or be consistent. When he's said this in talking with the King, Orural knows the Priest has won. His is the side that stands firm, for nothing can deny inconsistency. Even The Fox's usual calm, rationality seems forced.

I noticed a running theme of a fear of the unknown. The gods are always feared, never loved (54). The people of Glome don't know what to make of the gods, so they fear. There is always the possibility of the gods acting in any sort of way against the people should they anger the gods, so the people have to be careful of their actions. Towards the end, Orural states: "Now that I'd proved for certain that the gods are and that they hated me, it seemed that I had nothing to do but wait for my punishment" (175). She believes, yet I observe it to be primarily out of fear.

Reasons and Rationalizations

We all do it. When we do something that we didn't intend to do, we try to find the reason why. More often than not, this turns into coming up with so many different reasons for doing what we did that it is more of a rationalization for our mistakes than finding why we did it. We don't find the real reason, we just make up excuses.

This is what Orual is doing throughout all of Till We Have Faces. She has a complaint, but the reasons that she gives for her complaint turn out to not be her reasons at all. Instead of looking inside herself to find out why she ruined Psyche's happiness, she looks to the gods as objects for her blame. It wasn't her fault that the gods were unclear. She didn't really know. The gods changed the past so that even though before she wasn't sure, if she looked back now the past would tell her that she had always known. These are just a few of the reasons that Orual gives for her actions, but none of them are the true reason that she finally discovers. At the end of the book, when Orual finally reads her complaint, she isn't reading from the book she wrote. She reads something that she has never seen before; that she finds to be the truth. The truth is something that in all of her anger about what had been done, she had never considered as what could have been her reason.

The question I have been thinking about is whether or not Orual had good reasons in the midst of all of her rationalizations. I know that I am coming from a completely different time and culture, but I think that looking at how Orual sees her love for Psyche we can find some thing that may have made her doubt Psyche's story. Orual sees herself as Psyche's mother, she isn't really, but she has played that role in Psyche's life. This might be my world view coming into play, but what mother would be okay with her daughter living with and being married to a man she has not met. I know that as the one who was getting married I wanted my family to know who my husband was. This is a different situation and Psyche's husband is a god and no one knew that she would end up married after the sacrifice on the hill, but I think that some of Orual's jealousy came from the fact that as the one person who had loved Psyche up until this point, she was not allowed to meet the one who had come into Psyche's life. I think that any mother who was as close to her daughter as Orual seems to be to Psyche would be jealous of a man she has never met who takes her daughter from her.

Maybe this is just another rationalization that Orual herself had never thought of, but there is so much ambiguity in the story that maybe that is all we can find. Maybe Orual would have been less jealous of a man that she knew instead of a secretive god, but maybe not. I think that often it is easier for a person to rationalize his or her actions instead of claiming responsibility for them. Orual points the finger at the gods as the reason for what she did and this was not the best course of action she could have taken, but was there any truth in her accusation. We learn that her real reasons were selfishness and jealousy, but would things have been different if the gods had revealed more things to her?

Veils

The concept of Orual's veil has brought up a lot of talk on the subject, so I guess I'll continue on with my own thoughts. When Orual veils herself, she isn't only putting on a literal veil to hide her face, she's placing over herself a figurative covering, hiding her true self, her true face. She's not just covering up her physical ugliness, but the ugliness of her soul--her inner darkness. Her true face is the one she fears most--that selfishness which not only caused Psyche grief, but Orual and the people around her pain as well. Because of that fear of what lay beneath the veil, she "locked Orual up or laid her asleep as best I could somehwere deep inside me; she lay curled there. It was like being with child, but reversed; the thing I carried in me grew slowly smaller and less alive" (226).

Do we all hide away our true selves when they are too painful to reveal to the world, and more importantly, ourselves? Is the darkness of our hearts something we try to put a veil over, deceiving ourselves that it's to hide from the "world", when really it's us we're trying to hide from? A piece of Scripture comes to my mind when thinking of this: "And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit" (2 Corinthians 3:18).

"We, who with unvelied faces"...Scripture tells us that it's when the veils are off, we "reflect the Lord's glory" and become "transformed into his likeness". It's when our true faces are before God that He truly blesses us, that His glory shines upon us, lighting up the inner darkness and shadows left by the veil. In a sense I can reflect upon Lewis' words "How can they meet us face to face till we have faces?" (294) I don't think God wishes to meet with a lie; He knows who He created us to be and it is that that He most wishes to be with--our true selves, no veils, no self-deceptions; just us laid bare before His immeasurable love and grace.

It's painful to see beneath that veil, to see the ugliness of our humanity. I think Orual exemplified this with the painful experience of her "complaint". Yet there is redemption to be found, like we discussed in class. Jesus redeems us from the veil, from the lies we built because of the shame of our ugliness, our selfishness. His Love is enough to bring out those "unveiled faces". We're called to live and be free, not let those things beneath the veil become "smaller, and less alive." It's time to take off the veil--"But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away" (2 Corinthians 3:16)

Orual- Selfish Love

At first when I was reading the story, I felt very sorry for Orual. I pitied how others treated her and found her to be loving when she didn't focus on pitying herself, but instead on loving Psyche. This was a short-lived feeling though. I found Orual's love to be very selfish.
She is willing to give up Psyche even for her own good and happiness. And then once she realized what she had done, she does all she can to survive. She goes back to her castle and goes into survival mode. Instead of her possessive love ruling her, she is consumed with survival. For instance, she walls up the chains, and thus, walling up her memory of Psyche--burying it deep within. Her veil is another aspect of her survival. She must bury her true-self, her emotions, and her past; hiding them from herself and everyone else. So she doesn't have to face herself for what she did and how she feels. All the time she convinces herself that it was all to be blamed on the gods.
I really started to dislike Orual, and instead of pitying her, I looked down on who she had become. However, I would be lying if I said I haven't been "Orual" in the past, present, and certainly in the future. I think Lewis intended Orual to be all of us in one way or another. We all have our moments of selfish love. Of burying the truth away and just learning to survive. And of veiling our true selfs.
I realize that our souls all have ugly faces at times, and we too like Orual need to acknowledge this before we can be transformed.

A true friend?

I struggle so much with C.S. Lewis's perception of friendship love. His description of friendship to me is what I would simply consider an acquaintance not so much a deep friendship. I mean, to him a friend is someone who shares a common interest and that is the only thing that matters. They partake in the activity and do not desire to get to know the other person or what is going on in their personal life. That, to Lewis, would be overstepping the line with friendship.

What is friendship to me? Friendship is someone who cares about you. Someone who will listen to your worries, your fears, your struggles. Someone who will help you with those struggles. Someone who will also do those common things with you but also ask how your family is doing, how school is going and simply how life is going. To me this is what the community that Christ has called us to live in. How can you have community without friendship?

Maybe I am just getting Lewis's different kinds of love screwed up. Maybe the type of love I am thinking about is actually what he categorizes as something else. Lewis why do you have to be so confusing sometimes?

Trying to Understand

I've read the Divine Goodness chapter several times and I'm still going futz. The following is just my attempt to reword Lewis and in turn hopefully "dumb" everything down for myself.

First a question:

Who is God?

Humanity has many ideas when answering this question. Many of them mistaken and fucked up. I must step outside of myself and my innate humanity to understand that God is the ultimate essence of goodness--perfection. The answer: The originator of Good.

Goodness. Happiness. Lovingness. Although these words have slightly different derivatives, I should think it would be acceptable to categorize them as ultimately meaning Godlike, yes? God is love. God is good. God is happy. God is the epitome and essence of all three. God is also the creator of man--me.

What is my purpose?

God's calling for my life is to become like Him. I am bidden to 'put on Christ' and reflect his truth, his reality. I am made in God's image. The answer: Be God.

Through these questions and answers I can understand that:

God is the ultimate goodness.
God created me in goodness.
I am a reflection his goodness.
I am created to be good.
I am only good if I am God.

...but I'm not God. I'm merely a reflection. So...

Is my perception of goodness and truth different from God's?

Probably. I mean there's no way to really know unless I'm God, and I think we've decided I'm not. However, Christ calls men to repent--wouldn't this be pointless if God's standard of goodness wasn't similar to our own? Following in the ideas of Plato, we can compare our perception to that of a shadow and God's to the actual object from which the shadow is cast. Our goodness imitates God's.

As the creation, I will ALWAYS be the reflection of the creator. My happiness and goodness is merely a reflection of God. In the same way I can not initiate love, but only recreate it. However, because my love is an imitation, my human perceptions of love need to be tweaked slightly.

Perhaps a metaphor might help.?

A man with an empty stomach is hungry. He sees another man's food and desires to be full and satisfied by the food. In the same way, I am empty. I see the goodness in other people and desire to be full and satisfied by it. Love is the result of this desire.

God, on the other hand, doesn't need to be full. He already is full. God doesn't see the goodness in others. God created the goodness in others..

God doesn't want to love. God doesn't need to love. God is love. Therefore His love is a Pure gift.

God has no needs.
I have all needs...according the reality of God (which is truth).

Can I refuse God's love?

Within my humanity I can refuse God's love. But in the same way a man can't put out the sun by scribbling the word "darkness" on his walls, I can't diminish God's glory by refusing to acknowledge him. So...God will remain God even if I don't believe in him (That's promising).

I guess I'm left with three choices then.

1) Become God (this is currently impossible.)

2) Be like God (this means to reflect his truth)

3) Disregard and be separated from God (but ultimately this is considered misery.)

My. Head. Hurts.

Psyche's Confusion

In class today, we talked about how confused Orual is and how confused the people are by making Psyche into some type of goddess. Although at this point we are not quite sure who exactly Psyche is, but I think the people made Psyche believe that she is a goddess. After the encounter with the woman and her child when Psyche was with Redival that Orual found out about. Psyche did not know what she was doing, she did what the lady said. After this moment people started to believe she was goddess, so I think this made her think she was a goddess. After she helped a few more people and the Fox, more people came to the gates. Although her "healing powers" may have become coincidental, I think that she felt like she was needed. Later in the book, when she talks to Orual before she was brought to the mountain, she talked about longing for something, but she didn't know what she was longing for. Maybe when she was healing the people she saw herself as being needed. She was trying to fulfill that longing feeling. After she realized that being a "healer" was not what she was, she found out what she was longing for. I think that is why she was willing to go to the mountain, because she saw what she was longing for. She realized that the mountain was where everything that beautiful was. I think that Psyche is very confused about who she is. Although we do not know much about what happened when she was younger, we can come to the conclusion that she was influence a lot about what who she is. Psyche is a very smart girl, being taught by a Greek philosopher taught her a lot. However she seems to have no mind of her own, being influenced by the world around her. Of what we heard of the old story, we can see that she is effected by what people tell her by not caring about who her lover is. Then her sisters tell her about the plan of finding out who he is. Psyche seems be controlled by everyone around her, but when your name means mind, it could mean the lack there-of the mind.

Surface Friendships

C.S. Lewis defines friendship in a unique way, which I feel is a way only depicting part of what true friendship really means. He believes that friendship is only developed when two people have a common interest; therefore, creating a bond tighter than that of affection. I have always thought that a part of friendship could be that two people have something in common, but I would have never defined friendship by this definition. As I have thought about Lewis’ definition of friendship, I have begun to observe my own relationships in my life and have tried to depict why it is that we are friends. After seeking to understand why I am friends with the people I am friends with, I have found that the development of our friendship has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that we have similar interests. Yes, we do like similar things, but that is not why we are friends. We are friends because of divine circumstances of rooming situations, similar personalities, and great/awful experiences together. My best friends and I have spent time getting to know each other, and our personalities mesh well together; therefore, we became more than acquaintances. After spending much time together talking with each other and getting to know each other on a deeper level, we have developed a friendship that I know will be long-lasting. If our relationship were defined by Lewis’s definition, I would have to say that our common interest that has created the depth of our friendship is our love for Jesus Christ. I can say that if Lewis were on this track, which I don’t believe he is, that he would be absolutely correct. I believe that the reason my friendship have developed such a deep bond is because of our passion for Jesus Christ and the desire we have to live a life that’s good and pleasing to Him. After this connection comes getting to know each other as people as another top reason for the depth of our relationship. Along with loving Christ and getting to know each other, we have good and bad experiences that we have been through together. I think God uses the fellowship of people to create depth in a relationship. So looking at all the different aspects of my friendships and why I have people as friends, I have come to conclude that Lewis has a fraction of friendship correct.

Open Up

Love is opening up to someone, letting them change you. Lewis talks about this in many different places throughout his books. In his Chronicles Edmund cannot change unless he has changed. This does not mean that he just makes a conscience effort to change, but he has to open up and allow Aslan to change him. This is the essence of what it means to live like Christ, we must open ourselves up to Christ and only with him and through him will we start to change. Lewis shows how this relationship is similar to those relationships with our friends, in order to grow in those relationships we must open ourselves up to them. As long as we dont get stuck in your own pride and understand that pain is necessary to realize we are stuck and instead of going further the other direction and hiding ourselves, we open up to the good and the bad and allow the community to move to change to grow in us.