Shame

We too often try to conceal feelings of guilt. But "these things are very natural and we need not be ashamed of them. But unless Christianity is wholly false, the perception of ourselves which we have in moments of shame must be the only true one" (Problem of Pain, 50). Guilt and shame help us better understand what we've done wrong and how we can go about correcting the problem. We show that we need help in our moments of weakness- we realize we can't do it on our own. We have the need to be forgiven and move on. We need shame in order to realize we're doing something wrong.

Consciousness: how we feel about ourselves in moments of shame. Lewis goes on to say that this "must be the only true feeling". I was puzzled as to what he meant by this. I started to wonder if this means this is the only feeling we can trust. We can't trust our perception of how to be "good enough", but we can trust that gut-feeling when we know we've done something wrong. We cannot understand the fact that all men are sinners until we first acknowledge our own sin.

We have left God alone when He wants to be in community with us. I don’t think He always brings suffering as a result of bad choices, but I think it can be a warning sign. When we see our badness, it seems hard to realize how we never saw it before.
We can see that, just as we look on past civilizations as “cruel”, they now look on “our softness, worldliness, and timidity” with disdain. Primitive Christians were pious because they saw a need to rely on God- we don’t intend to. The holier a man is, the more he realizes He needs God to correct His failings.

A Horror to God?

At the end of the "Human Wickedness" chapter, this phrase stuck in my mind: "we actually are, at present, creatures whose character must be, in some respects, a horror to God" (62). The word "horror" is what truly caught me. We appear as a "horror to God"...wait, that's not the benevolent view I want God to have of me. I thought I always appear as a "child" in His sight. Yet when I think how often I continue to commit the same sin regardless of the grace of Christ, how frequent I think myself "a better Christian" than others, and how many times I fail in placing God first in my life...that's pretty horrific of me. God has given me everything--life, liberty, love of friends and family...and yet it's not enough! I want more, I want things for me; I'm selfish, greedy, and unappreciate and undeserving of this marvelous Love that exists not just for me but for all. The Psalmist says "For you are great and do marvelous deeds; you alone are God...For great is your love toward me" (Pslam 86:10, 13)

This then leads me to the next part of the phrase from Lewis: "when we really see it, a horror to ourselves." In that moment when God's grace falls upon us, when our convictions arise and we see ourselves laid bare, are we not horrified? I know at times I've been shocked to see how far I'd strayed from Him. How did I get here? That question has burned in my mind at certain moments of my walk with Christ--moments after Jesus rescued me from despair and brought me to the Truth. So now we have this word "horror" to describe our wickedness, our human failing in God's eyes...and yet, when it comes down to it, I believe the grace of God surpasses this label.

The sacrifice of Christ has cleansed us from continuing to appear as this "horror" to God. I think Lewis simply used the word to describe the reaction we have to the convictions of our sin. When our failings become so evident to us, how could we not grow fearful of our appearance. But thankfully, I believe we serve a God that we need be afraid of; "fear" yes, but only in a reverance tone. God is Love, unfailing, unending Love--and that Love overrides the "horror" of humanity.

C.S. Lewis: Telling it Like it Is

Although it's a somewhat scathing criticism of humans, I really enjoyed reading Chapter 4, "Human Wickedness," from The Problem of Pain. As I read it, I kept thinking about how a lot of Lewis's criticisms are at least somewhat linked to the current society we live in. Yes, we do live in a much more post-modern society than Lewis did, but compared to the big picture of history, the mid 2oth century and 2010 share a lot more similarities than differences. I kept wondering, among other things, why we lack feeling shame and why we focus so much on being kind (the weak, wimpy kindness Lewis talks about). Also, I couldn't quite understand what our current society has to do with this. Lewis seems to explain what I was thinking when he writes, "From considering how the cruelty of our ancestors looks to us, you may get some inkling how our softness, worldliness, and timidity would have looked to them, and hence how both must look to God" (p. 58).


This quote from Lewis helps show what I was thinking while reading this chapter: our society in general, along with Christians, needs more of a "backbone", a willingness to stand up for what we believe in. I guess I get fed up sometimes with the thinking, "You can do whatever you want, who am I to say how to live your life? Let's just respect each other and get along." Of course, I'm not saying Christians should become like the fanatical Christians during the Crusades who supposedly slaughtered non-Christians in the name of God. No, the Crusades are a black mark on the face of Christianity. But I do agree with Lewis that this false kindness that we often practice, which is more about getting along with no tension whatsoever, is a problem. I think most of us can agree that we would want someone to give us a dose of "tough love" if they see something wrong with what we're doing. If I'm stumbling somewhere in my life, I want someone to show me, even if it means negative feelings towards that person at the time. I just think society and Christianity needs a shot of bluntness, toughness, honesty, and so on. In the end, reducing the kindness that Lewis criticizes would lead to a more true form of love. Finally, I think it's apparent that I agree with much of what Lewis says in this chapter.


That's a somewhat rambling, jumbled up mess of what I was feeling after reading this chapter. I think the interest I have in history, and therefore the different time periods of history, has something to do with why Lewis's criticism of our current society stuck out to me.

Wicked Denial

As I read the chapter on "Human Wickedness," I just kept thinking, wow, we really try to a lot of lengths just to make ourselves feel better about ourselves.
First, an early sentence that stuck out to me was "thus a man easily comes to console himself for all his other vices by a conviction that 'his heart's in the right place' and 'he wouldn't hurt a fly,' though in fact he has never made the slightest sacrifice for a fellow creature." (pg. 49)
This is one of those instances in life that the thought doesn't count. It's the action that counts. A Christian can have every intention in the world; but if they don't follow through with them, the intentions mean nothing. What if we were saying now that 'God's heart is in the right place' and 'he wouldn't hurt a fly,' but God never followed through with his action of saving us? It wouldn't seem so alright to us then.
Then Lewis went on to say: "we imply, and often believe, that habitual vices are exeptional single acts, and make the oppposite mistake about our virtues."
Once again we go to the trouble of convincing ourselves that we are such good people. So we stumbled just "this once," 'it's not like I do this all the time.' 'What does God expect perfection?' I am guilty of this myself. I go on an SSP or I find someway to help someone else; then for the rest of that hour, day, week, I feel great about what a great follower of God I am. 'Good for me, I am such a good little servant' and I didn't even expect a thank-you, how humble am I. Ok, obviously I am mocking myself, but then seriously later in the day, I will sin and let wickedness overcome me and I find someway to excuse myself.
The whole rest of the chapter Lewis spelled out more and different ways that we excuse ourselves for our wicked behavior. I kept thinking, yeah, we make ourselves feel better about ourselves in the short-run, but it would be more beneficial to us to accept our weaknesses, acknowledge our wrongs, and stop making stupid excuses. Other humans may be falsely convinced, but the excuses don't fly with God--and that is what truly matters.

Do we limit God?

God is not one of us so we shouldn't hold him to our standard. Right? It isn't okay to say that God isn't capable of doing something just because we humans couldn't do it. Most people do believe this. We can say that God can't make a rock so big that He can't lift it because that is nonsense, but to say that He can't do something that would be physically impossible for a human but is still conceivable is something quite different.

But how powerful is God really? This question is often answered by looking at who gets saved and who doesn't. The fact that some people won't be saved is a dilemma. Usually this comes across as either God is not as powerful as we would like to believe and can't save those people, or that God is a cruel God who has predestined them to damnation. Why are these the only options?

Why is is that we think that God either can't or won't save these people? Are we saying that if God can do something, then He will do that thing? I believe that there is another possibility. A third possibility goes like this: God could predestine everything and make us live our lives so that we all get saved, but He chooses not to exercise that power. He wants us to choose Him of our own accord and therefore gives us free will. Even though He knows that some people will not come to Him and therefore not be saved, He allows us to make that decision for ourselves. He has the power, but chooses not to use it. People who are not saved end up that way not because God is weak or cruel, but because He allows us to choose for ourselves.

Just because God has the power to do something doesn't necessarily mean that He will do it. Isn't it possible that He has simply given us the power to choose? Why do we look at God as if He either uses all power that He has or that he doesn't have all power? Are we putting arbitrary limits on God by saying that if He has power he has to constantly use it? I think that sometimes we find it unfathomable that an all-powerful God would give some of His power to powerless creatures like us, but isn't it possible that He could?

Pa or Gpa?

"We want , in fact, not so much a Father in Heaven as a Grandfather in Heaven -- a senile benevolence who, as they say 'like to see young people enjoying themselves,' and whose plan for the universe was simply that it might be truly said at the end of each day, 'a good time was had by all'."

A grandfather instead of a father. Do people really believe that? Do they feel that way? Lewis states that not many people would not create a theology on those standards. Or it would not be a very convincing argument. However, when I look into the Christianity of America. I see this comfortably all over the place, whether that is what God wanted for us or not. So many Christians live their life in complacency and feel that it is ok. God wants them to be careful and sitting comfortably right?

However, when one reads the gospels, they soon realize that that is not the life that we are called to live by Christ. We are called to be radical and live on the edge and in the face of danger with our faith . Jesus was not safe. He healed the sick on the sabbath. He had dinner with prostitutes and tax collectors.

So to say that we want a grandfather who does not really care what we do as long as we are happy does not match with scripture. Now I'm not saying that God does not want us to be happy, I am simply saying that I do not feel like it is biblically based to live life in complacency.

But I as Lewis, probably needs to revaluate my perception of love, because maybe the love of God is that both of a Grandfather as well as a Father. Who knows.

Room for Sand

"The minimum condition of self-consciousness and freedom, then, would be that the creature should apprehend God and, therefore, itself as distinct from God. It is possible that such creature exist, aware of God and themselves, but of no fellow creatures. If so, their freedom is simply that of making a single naked choice -- of loving God more than the self or the self more than God. But a life so reduced to essentials is not imaginable to us. As soon as we attempt to introduce mutual knowledge of fellow creatures we run up against the necessity of 'Nature'" (Problem of Pain p. 30)

To think, to only know God. To not know anyone else or of anything else. My first thought is wow that would be lonely, but then I thought more. It's hanging out with just you and God. How awesome is that? What would life be like though? What would cause you to make that 'naked' choice of loving self more than God? Would God kind of sway your thoughts and your feelings by his power? Would that truly be your choice then? If this was so, would he chose certain people to make that decision? Would pre-desitination come into play? I have been contemplating the thought of if you were aware of just yourself and God, would there be nature around? To me when Lewis mentions creature, I do not only think of humans but also the animals. I imagine a big white room of just hanging out with God, which would seem to be pretty intimidating.

So as Lewis is saying, once you throw all other things in, that is when people's mind start getting distracted from choosing God. Other humans distract us, school distracts us, computers distract us, books distract us. It is true. Our lives become so busy and so encapsulated with other things that we forget about God and putting him in our lives. We so easily pull up our buckets with rocks and everything else and then put God in, after. Trying to fit Him in where we can. But why? Is this maybe why we feel pain? Is it not God causing us pain, as some may feel, however, it is because we create our own pain due to not placing God in the place that He belongs?

No church in Hobbiton

The other day, we discussed religion in Middle-earth. The general condenses was that there was no specific religion (church, gods, rituals, and the like) in Tolkien’s world. It was, however, suggested that “religion” existed in Middle-earth on a different scale. While the realm of hobbits and balrogs has creators and higher beings, it has no one to be called Lord of all. Instead, Tolkien’s tales contain a strong theme or good versus evil. There is a sense of the powers of good and evil being some kind of abstract, universal authorities that people are ultimately aligned with. These two contrasting sides seem to be the closest thing to religion Middle-earth has. There, it’s not who you worship or what church you attend, but how you live and what you fight for—the whole world is “religion”.

On the side of “good”, firstly, we have the elves. The elves are peaceful, scholarly, and philosophically and spiritually educated, and seem to be held higher than the other races. Next is the race of men. Humans are known for their chivalry and virtuous lives. They live and die for king and country, and are proud. Also on the side of “good” are hobbits. Halflings live peaceful, largely unadventurous, carefree lives. They, along with the elves, hold nature in high regard. The other race is not so obviously on the side of good. The dwarves are looked down upon (pun intended) by the other races because of their greed and reclusive way of life. However, their withdrawn culture does not seek to destroy or seize the lands or lives of the “good” races, and usually end up joining their side.

The side of “evil”, however—Sauron and his minions—only wish to see the conquest, annihilation and enslavement of the peace-loving races and everything they live for. Also, all of the bad-guys are pretty anti-peace-and-nature. Even their area of the continent is barren and hostile. The proponents of evil all seem to be inherently bad with no hint of reason or remorse, though succumbed to corruption way back when in Middle-earth’s history. This corruption and subsequent fall is usually associated with the temptation and desire of power. A prime example of this is the Nazgul, who were once kings but were deceived into falling under Sauron’s power and eventually became so corrupted and evil that they dwindled into near-nothingness.

I’m not entirely sure what I think of all of this, but it intrigues me and I wish we had had more time to discuss it. Part of me sees it as Tolkien asserting the idea that it isn’t our religion or what we say we are that determines our alignment in life, but what we value and live and fight for. So is life so blatantly good and evil? Is there any middle ground or partial alignment? What significance, theologically and philosophically, do the differences in human view of morality and God’s view hold? Who knows?

Tom Bombadil, that’s who.

Eustace the Dragon-Boy

I was most intrigued in the “Voyage of the Dawn Treader” when Eustace was turned back into a boy. But why did Lewis have a young boy endure such a “beastly” experience? Was it so he could place a dragon scene somewhere in Narnia or did Lewis write this so we can make a comparison to our own lives?

I believe Lewis wrote this section for both reasons but mostly so we can make a comparison of Eustace’s life and our own. I see multiple parallelisms between the process of Eustace being changed and the testimony of a Christian. When Eustace explains the story to Edmund (which I find fitting since they both went through a major attitude check in Narnia), Aslan had first told Eustace to follow him. Eustace did not have a true picture of who Aslan was. He had heard stories of Aslan, but had never seen Aslan. However, Eustace trusted and followed. Just like Eustace, we’ve never seen God face-to-face. We’ve heard stories from the Bible, but haven’t received the physical sight of God, yet we believe and follow him.

Upon reaching the well, Aslan tells Eustace a peculiar thing: “undress first.” Eustace began to “undress” himself by peeling off his skin. Second parallelism: we, as Christians, are told to “Put to death therefore what is earthly in you…” (Colossians 3:5). We must also peel off our selfishness, greed, immorality, and anything else that is hindering us from being pure and holy. But what really did the skin that was being peeled off represent? Did peeling off the skin mean that Eustace wanted to put to death his old self and begin anew? But what of the act of Aslan peeling off the majority of layers? Was this to show that Aslan forgave Eustace or that Aslan had the power to help Eustace overcome his old self? Whether or not we can ever really answer these questions, we do know one thing: after that experience, Eustace was never really the same.

"Mere" Scripture

This may be a little outside of our more recent readings, but I'd like to go back to the day in class when we discussed how fully or literally we must believe Scripture for the foundation of our faith. How necessary is it that we believe everything in the gospels happened just as they say it did? Are some things just stories or are they all fact? I don't know if we'll ever really be able to answer all these questions. In fact, I'm pretty sure we won't be able to. I guess the issue for me is what is the "mere" portion that I must believe in order to support my faith?

I honestly have to admit that saying all of it could be stories and it wouldn't matter doesn't ring true with me. Neither do I believe that we can pick and choose what portions to call "valid." If all Scripture is divinely inspired, shouldn't all of it carry the same weight. I don't give much weight to a brutally literal and extremist interpretation. For example, I've heard it said that the Bible can't be infallible because Jesus says that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds, but science tells us it isn't. So does that make the Bible worthless for pursuing truth? Probably not, unless you intend to use it as a botany textbook. In that case, you'll need to pay $100 more for the newer edition.

I guess I find it the most reasonable to put the same amount of belief in all portions of Scripture, which may then be interpreted in various lights, although not necessarily with the same amount of validity. I just can't bring myself to throw my soul on the mercy of an event like the resurrection recounted in Scripture and then turn around and dismiss the virgin birth as simply a good story. And yet, if it were possible that someone disproved Jesus' turning water to wine, my faith would by no means be shattered.

When discussing truth, we need a standard by which to measure it. For me, that standard is Scripture. So I choose to put faith in the writings of men from 2000 years ago, even if I won't ever be able to prove the absolute truth of every recounted event.

Our Time vs God's Time

One thing that I have noticed and this goes along with Suzannes' earlier post "Humans in Narnia" and something that I mentioned in class, is that yes these humans and dwarfs enter into worlds that are unknown to them to save the world that is in peril need of a savior of some sort. However in Narnia, as Aslan is considered a Christ-figure, why does he need the presence of Humans to defeat the issues of his world. Going back to what I said in class, it was these people from a different world saving one another. I think that we as people in this world need to work together to save one another in different parts of the world as well as our own neighborhoods.
I was also confused by why the moments the children are brought into Narnia, they were in need of some help as well. Lucy needs help for hiding from her brothers, Eustace and Jill are hiding from the bullies, Lucy, Edmund, Susan, and Peter are being "saved" from school. I have begun to realize that none of these moments was it ever their time, it was Aslan's or Narnia's time. Was Aslan saving them at times when they were in need? It makes me think that it was to teach them that when they are in need, others may be in need as well. Maybe to the point where not to focus on our issues, but there maybe people in greater need than ourselves. Just as it is in this world, it is never our time, as much as we would want it to be, it is always God's time. Our concept of time is and always will be different than God's.

Heck no, techno!

We live in a society highly dependent upon technology and machinery. You could say that we live, thrive and survive off of it. Our vehicles get us from point A to point B in relatively no time, our computers provide us access to vast pools of knowledge, and our medical technology allows us to live long and healthy lives. To many people, our technology may seem like a gift from God or the gods, depending on their belief system. However the Inklings, at least Tolkein and Lewis, seem to have a slightly different view when it comes to technology and modernization.

Most of the time the authors appear almost to condemn the use of machinery, a key example being the character of Saruman in The Lord of the Rings who turns his mind away from nature to the advancement of his army by means of new tools and systems. With science and a form of medieval technology he goes from being an agent of good to a powerful proponent of wickedness and greed. Once a lover of nature, he now rips down the trees to fire his industry and creates unnatural monsters out of the earth. Another example, if not such a potent one, are the actions of Shift and the Calormenes in The Last Battle. They conduct a conveyor like system, nearly working the Narnians to death, to tear down trees to make into rafts and other contraptions for their profit and advancement. In both of these situations nature is destroyed to make way for inventions with an evil intent. A final example is Uncle Andrew's science in The Magician's Nephew. Lewis casts a very grim light on the antics and personality of the scientist, and although both good and evil became of the use of Uncle Andrew's rings, perhaps it would have been better left undone.

So what does this mean for us? Does our use and dependence on science and technology mean that we too have begun to lose our roots and turn from nature to greed? Although the trees in our world do not have voices or kings and ents to defend them, do we have more of a right to cut them down for profit? Now, I'm not trying to bash technology. Although our world does not have vials of magic elixir from the Valley of the Sun our modern medical technology can be borderline miraculous at times and our machines and computers are not something to dismiss lightly. So is there a difference between our use of technology and Tolkein's or Lewis' use? In the Chronicles of Narnia and Lord of the Rings an example of a good use of technology doesn't come to my mind. The "good people" are mostly peasants or similar people who have little use for modernization. Is this lack of representation what puts a stigma on technology? Perhaps the authors do not intend for us to pay such close attention to the methods used to carry out wicked deeds, but the actual wicked deeds and the evil minds behind them.

The Happy Ending

Our culture seems to be obsessed with a “realism” that seeks to portray the evils in the world winning out in the end or a “realism” of cold chance. Nihilism is perhaps more pervasive than we realize. But is this truly realism? Is reality just the pain and bleakness in our world, and is art meant to highlight this? From many books and movies that I have been directed to, the answer is yes. I think Tolkien would be dismayed to see this turn our culture has taken. As a generation, we seem to have reacted against the happy ending, dismissing it as too good to be true. Is this why we so often find ourselves skeptical of the gospel? Are we so acutely aware of the dyscatastrophe in our world that we fail to see and appreciate the eucatastrophe that is just as present? I just can’t get away from the notion that a modern rendition of the gospel would focus on the grit and grime Jesus worked in all his life and dwell on the agony and bloodshed of his crucifixion. (The Passion of the Christ, anyone?) Yeah, [crap] happens. But that isn’t the point, in this life or in the gospel. If we focus on the dyscatastrophe in the gospel, we miss the point. Yes, Jesus came to die. But even more importantly, he came to Live, and to bring us Life. The point of the gospel is the eucatastrophe of the resurrection, our chance to be made right with God the Creator. Maybe it’s time to resuscitate the happy ending in our perception of this world. As we strive to heal the evils in our world, let us not fall into the cynicism that so often waits to devour those who wade into the dark. Rather, be fully aware of the good, and let it take your breath away.

Origins of Evil: The Lies and Lures of Desire

The four Hobbits brush the dirt off their clothes as they find themselves standing on a path through the woods, having just fallen (literally!) out of the angry clutches of Farmer Maggot. Merry and Pippin are quite carefree, thinking that all danger is behind them. . .but Frodo senses that something else is amiss and urges his companions to seek shelter in the exposed root canopy of a nearby tree. A black rider comes up behind them, his very presence seeming to inspire the emergence of creeping centipedes, insects, and spiders from beneath the tree under which the Hobbits are hiding. Frodo’s eyes role back in their sockets and his lids begin to close, as if he is falling into some kind of possession. His left hand holds the ring in a ready position, while his right, with one finger dangerously extended, reaches toward the Ring. . .

Of course we all know that, in this instance, Frodo does not succumb to his desire to put the Ring on his finger. However, he is certainly tempted to do so. The tension and temptation to yield to this evil – to yield to his desire for the ring – follows Frodo throughout the rest of his journey. In “Tolkien and the Nature of Evil,” Davison explains one possible philosophy of evil’s origin: that it comes from “inordinate desire” . . . the desire for something that violates the rightful order of things.” In the scene with the Black Rider, we see Frodo’s first encounter with the evil enticement of the Ring. Though he initially resists temptation, as the story continues, his resilience weakens and he begins to yield to its pressures.

In scenes such as the one mentioned above, Tolkien describes how the Ring holds the power to tempt and entice its possessor. The path that Frodo follows when his resilience fades is poignantly related to the way the Bible explains our own progression down the path of sin. James 1: 12-15 says the following:

“Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him. Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God," for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.”

In this passage, evil is essentially described as the lure and enticement of man’s desire. On the basis of this passage, I agree with Augustine’s perspective on evil’s origin – it comes from our own distorted desires. As Frodo yields to his desires (similar to idea of giving in to temptation), he begins to use the Ring (similar to sinning), and slowly it takes over his life and changes him, perverting his goodness.

God created us to be good (Gen. 1), and he gives us the ability to resist temptation (1 Cor. 10:12-14), but when our inordinate desires prompts one of our fingers to reach out for the Ring, we will fall down a slippery slope of sin when we yield. Does it concur, then, that evil is synonymous with sin? If it is true that evil begins with inordinate desire (as Augustinian suggests) and that temptation and enticement by our desires leads to sin (as James suggests), then aren’t they the same thing?

Babies and Tribal Men

Since the discussion, my mind is constantly struggling with the thought of what happens to those in other countries who haven't heard of Christ. I've thought about it before and I never really made a final decision of what I believed, simply, well I know what I am called to do and the Great Commission but then what about the people who have a faith and seek the truth. Maybe they are already following God but they are simply calling him by another name. This past semester in Belize, we discussed a lot about how God came to redeem creation as well not just mankind. This also causes me struggle because then our God of love will save the rocks, the trees, the creatures of this Earth, but only saves a select few humans? I understand the scripture I know what it says, but as someone mentioned in class the other day, universalism sounds nice. But does universalism simply make things be comfortable for us to digest, make it all happy go lucky? Is it just putting God in a box saying God you would never do that?

The situation with babies as well. It clicked in my head the other day during class that it is very similar to the indigenous tribes. Babies have never heard nor did they have a chance. Just like the indigenous tribes. Does that mean that if indigenous tribes who never heard the name of Christ don't get in then babies don't? I don't know. Its a constant debate. Thoughts?

Narnian Kings

In Prince Caspian, the good Badger Tufflehunter makes the claim that "Narnia has never been right except when a Son of Adam was king." Not knowing all of Narnia's history, we have to take Trufflehunter's word for it, but we can say that it doesn't work in reverse. Just because a son of Adam was king did not ensure peace in Narnia did not ensure peace in Narnia. After all, the Telemarines were all sons of Adam and daughters of Eve and their reign did not work out very well for the old Narnians. Until, of course, Caspian's reign began. But not because he was the rightful king by Telemarine standards. He had been rooted in Narnia, first by his nurse and later Cornelius, something none of the other Telemarine kings had quite managed. I think it is interesting that Caspian was the chosen king at all. Aslan could have brought in another child from "our world" to rule, but instead Caspian was chosen.

Give it to God

In the essay Aslan the Terrible there are a few reasons given as to why humans suffer and what purpose suffering can serve. One of the reasons listed is because God is showing us the choices we are making are wrong, and hurt and sorrow may be the quickest way for us to see this. The other main reason discussed in this essay is that suffering allows humans to discover their hidden strengths. The example this essay gives is when Shasta runs straight at a lion, weaponless, to protect Aravis and the horses. Now after reading A Horse and His Boy, its very clear that Shasta was a very timid and scared young kid, and this act of bravery that he shows is very surprising, but it just shows that when God allows us to go through difficult times and times of suffering, he is pushing us to be our best and in these times we will even surprise ourself with our ability to step up. But i want to add one more to the list.

I think God allows us to suffer because when we are weak we are forced to lean on him. He wants us to run to Him, and sadly it typically takes something pretty terrible to shake us up before we stop trying to do it on our own. And its when we are weak that we are able to see just how powerful our God truly is. So i believe the main purpose of suffering is to grow us into the people God has made us to be, to run to Him, to develop a stronger faith, to relate to others going through similar situations, and ultimately for God to step in and care for us like He so longs to do if we will just let Him. Sorry for being all preachy, just some stuff i've been learning lately as i try to give up my struggles in life and let God carry them for me.

Is He Capable?

Again in class today we have got on the discussion of miracles. This has come up from first I think when we asked why Lucy's brothers and sister did not believe her and second with talking about magic in both the Chronicles and the Lord of the Rings. This topic is one that I have discussed and thought about probably more than any other topic in my years here at Northwestern. (At one time the whole campus was encompassed with a man who could heal and reign down gold.) We know that God is all powerful and capable of wondrous works and miracles that we cannot comprehend. So we are we so skeptical of believing these acts. I here about someone who has this experience and if they associate it with God I immediately put them in this sub par faith with sub par knowledge category. Thinking that if they only knew what I know then they would see that there is a reasonable explanation to it all.

In the Chronicles the kids followed Aslan blindly because the believed in Aslan. When things came up that did not seem like something Aslan would be doing they questioned the motives and experiences. Is doubt important for us? Does being skeptical mean I don't trust God? Do we need to have more child like faith and not questioning all we see. Or do we need to question those actions that people point towards God's divine power. We love the supernatural, but only when its left in our fantasies and books. In our new age of reason there is no room for miracles, some of Americas founders wouldn't even accept Christ's miracles. We see this as foolish, but are we all that far away from this? I know that he is capable, but still I always question the motives.

Wrestling with the "Terrible" Characteristic

After reading Aslan the Terrible, I have been wrestling with God’s “terrible” side on a weekly basis. I agree with much of what Lewis said in the article, but where I struggle is why does God send people to hell?

In Romans 9 it says this,
“11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?”

We talk a lot about why does God cause natural disasters and pain in the world, but I feel my question is why does God create people for hell? I understand that God wants to use pain to help us grow, and I can confidently say that every time I look back on my life to see how I have matured, pain has been right there with me. I look back on my life, and I am thankful for the times God tested and tried me so I could become stronger and grow into the person He has created me to be so I can fulfill my purpose for His kingdom. And I think most people who live their life for Jesus Christ feel very similar.
But what about those God makes for hell? What about the people who have no choice in belonging to Jesus Christ? How can the loving God who sent His son to save all of humanity purposely make his creation for the one who is of complete evil? How is God winning the battle of good versus evil when He is giving people up to the devil himself? I understand that if God hardens one person’s heart that maybe many other people will be brought to Christ through that person, but shouldn’t that person be rewarded then, too? I don’t see Satan giving up people who are for God, if anything; he is attacking them in every way he knows how. After reading this passage, I can’t help but feel that pain is so much better than eternal damnation. I would rather have natural disasters and hurt for seventy years than not have a decision in spending eternity with the God of the universe. Reading the article, Aslan the terrible, I believe that they needed to include a characteristic of God that I truly see as terrible.
My sinful nature wants to resent God for this passage and this characteristic that Paul shares with us, but the end of the passage is very humbling. I am God’s creation so who am I to say what God should and shouldn’t do? And I can’t help but be completely humbled that God has chosen me to follow Him and bring others to Him, but I know that I will forever wrestle with this one “terrible” characteristic of the God I serve.

Screw the Neevil

"What did he [Aslan] say had entered the world--A Neevil--What's a Neevil?"

Aslan wasn't talking about a Neevil nor a Weevil. Aslan was informing the 1st council of Narnia that an Evil had entered into the country.

In The Magician's Nephew we learn that Evil entered into the world from an outside force. An intruder had invaded into a new territory, even though Narnia was intended to be pure and untainted.

However, in our world we are taught that evil came from within. An inside force had fallen from its place in perfection and became the source of evil in our universe.


I've often wondered where this idea of Evil falling from heaven came from. I did a little Bible and Wikipedia work and discovered some interesting ideas. Within the Bible, I found this passage:

How you have fallen from heaven,
O morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!

-Isaiah 14:12

After a quick Wikipedia search I discovered many other stories. The Hebrew Apocrypha is a fascinating little book! In the book of Enoch we find that Satanael is the prince of the Grigori, who was cast out of heaven. The Grigori was a tribe of fallen angels who mated with humans and bore creatures known as Nephilim! These creatures are actually mentioned in the Bible, Genesis 6:4 and Numbers 13:33.

Where does all this come from?! How are these people able to interpret a history that came into existence before themselves? Did God teach the authors in history class, right after he explained the happenings of the Job story?

I sometimes wonder if we look too much into these stories. Maybe we shouldn't try so hard to put a face with the Neevil, I mean Evil. What if Evil is just some negative force that really doesn't derive from anything? It just exists.

Sometimes I find myself questioning the Bible's fallibility. How are the stories in the "certified" Bible any more legitimate than other stories, such as the Apocrypha?

(Sorry for the tangent.)

Awful Waste of Space

Young Ellie: Dad, do you think there's people on other planets? Ted Arroway: I don't know, Sparks. But I guess I'd say if it is just us... seems like an awful waste of space.
-- Contact

“Awful Waste of Space”

In my Philosophy Thru Film and Fiction class last fall we watched the movie Contact which is about what we would do with life on other planets or if we knew about life on other planets. One of the themes or major quotes was that if there wasn’t other intelligent life out there, “…seems like an awful waste of space.”
This movie had bothered me because I had grown up with the thought that Jesus died once and only once. For us. To think that there were other worlds out there that Jesus would have to die for as well…So when we read Religion and Rocketry by C.S. Lewis, I began to ponder it all anew. Are we the only race of intelligent living beings? If there weren’t other intelligent living beings, why did God create such a huge place? What does it say about us if we are the only intelligent race? What does it say about God? Or the inverse, what if there are other living beings out there in time and space? Were they as proud, ignorant and sinful as we are?
We often think well, Christ should have to come and die more than once. He came for us, we are special. When really, the fact that he had to come and die for us should really humble us. Maybe there are other planets out there where the life form isn’t dependant on God’s grace the way we are, and yet…what would that say about those creatures?
It is just interesting to think about how what we believe about the universe God created impacts how we see salvation and redemption. What would God’s purpose be in creating such a vast space? Just for his own pleasure? Because it is beautiful? It probably is still pretty tiny for him, but…We still have to think about why God created us.
What is our purpose? If we are the only living beings in the universe then God created us to do what? To entertain him? To serve him? To love him? For him to love? And if his love in endless, boundless, why would he not create numerous living, thinking, loving, breathing beings who he could love as well? Would that love constitute a saving grace for all of them? Or would some races be without sin? But then we come into the topic of sin, which is, in itself, another never ending tangent.

"...all find what they truly seek."

In The Last Battle, I really didn't understand why Emeth got into Aslan's country. He followed Tash his whole life, serving and worshiping him. According to Lewis, Emeth seeking Aslan, even though he didn't know what he was looking for, was what, for lack of a better phrase,"got him into" Aslan's country. Can someone really follow Christ without even knowing it?

After reading James Sennett's "Worthy of a Better God," I did a lot of thinking about what I believe. I started rolling the idea of Inclusivism around in my head. Would God save someone who didn't know Him explicitly? And what about the people that "have never heard"? Would God send them to eternal punishment? Then I remembered a verse...

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities‑his eternal power and divine nature‑have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. Romans 1:20

I'm still struggling in determining whether I would call my self an inclusivist or an exclusivist. I've been brought up to believe that there is "one true religion, and that one must belong to that religion in order to be saved." (p. 233) Then again, I have also believed that infants and young children go to heaven. They do not "explicitly" belong to a religion, because they aren't able to understand that. That would make me an inclusivist. But for me, believing that people in Africa who have never heard Christ's name go to heaven is a step further than believing that infants go to heaven.

Before this class, I suppose I was one of those people that put Lewis on a pedestal. I loved Narnia (and still do) but I blindly followed everything Lewis stood for. I now realize this was a mistake. By following anyone blindly, I'm not saying what I believe, I'm just going along with whoever's book I'm reading at the moment. I will definitely still have to wrestle with the idea of inclusivism vs. exclusivism, but I learned a lot from this chapter. It's important for me to absorb information critically, instead of just taking it for what it says.

Salvation...Inclusive or Exclusive?

My gut-wrenching theological convictions were plunged into spiritual/intellectual battle while I read Sennett's "Worthy of a Better God". Sennett outlined four views of Salvation well: universal salvation, pluralism, inclusivism and exclusivism. I have and continue to associate myself with the exclusivist model for salvation; however, points made by Lewis, Sennett and my previous pondering made me seriously consider the inclusivist model. Sennett posed that a person outside of formal Christian beliefs could be saved because they followed Christ their whole life without knowing it, despite their following another religion or none at all. I believe this rationale does not water down Christ's life and purpose and vindicates living for almighty God whereas universal salvation and pluralism, in my opinion, soften the gospel and make living a holy life obsolete. Also, some of my previous questions about other faiths and how they at time seem to act like better "Christians" than those of us who hold Christian beliefs. For example, Gandhi preached that we must not hate our enemy but love them and he executed his teaching to the max! While watching the movie Gandhi exclusivist salvation view was throttled! I thought, "If there was anyone who lived out what Jesus taught, morality at its highest stage, it was Gandhi". Pondering this and what Shane Claiborne's story about his experience of being reconciled to Muslims from Iraq who had seen their loved ones killed by American soldiers made me think, "there is no way God is not at work through these people even though they are not Christians; but why? God isn't going to save them so why does he work through them?". My conclusion is that God is at work in people that are not explicitly "Christian". Still the question remains, why would God work through people he did not intend to save? Is that not sick? Could a being who has others follow his practices and represent the life he intended his flock to live and abandon those who did not call themselves Christians? Or even more disturbing, send those to an eternity away from his majesty that never had a chance to become a Christian?

Lewis and Sennett re-aroused those burning questions in my gut and forced me to back my belief in exclusivism or accept that view with an elementary proof that it is what my youth pastor taught. My final reasons for re-adopting the exclusivist view of salvation lie in the high risks of adopting another view and the power and grace thundering from God almighty's existence. The risk I see in adopting another view of salvation would cut the necessity to embark in the great commission, to spread the name of Jesus to every tribe, tongue, and nation.

Finally, even though God may be at work in other tribes, tongues, and nations that do not know Christ, I do not believe God will save them without accepting Jesus as Lord because this method multiplies the gift of God's precious, only son being murdered on a stick by his own creation. Making the gift all the more powerful to those who have received it.

Sennett's "Worthy of a Better God..."

After reading Sennet's "Worthy of a Better God: Religious Diversity and Salvation in The Chronicles of Narnia", I realized that I haven't thought much about my specific view on salvation. After reading this essay, I can say with certainty that I reject the universal salvation and pluralism claims. I believe that there is "one true religion" that is the "only way" (pg. 232). However, during the reading of this essay and afterwards, I have found myself struggling with what I should think in regards to inclusivism and exclusivism. Honestly, I tend to agree more with inclusivism than exclusivism, but at the same time it seems daunting to my fundamentalist side to say that "it is possible for people to be saved by that religion without consciously or explicitly belonging to it" (pg. 232).

The main reason inclusivism is appealing to me is because of the issue about people who never get the chance to hear the distinct message of Christianity. How can someone who never hears the word "Jesus" and the story that goes with that name automatically be condemned to Hell? As Sennet says, "God never treats anyone unjustly" (pg. 243). Yes, we will experience unjust events in this lifetime, but when it comes to eternal life, I'd have to agree (or at least hope!) that God will not be unjust.

I'm not saying that being missionaries and spreading the Word to the farthest, most remote corners of the earth is a bad thing. As Christians, we are called to spread the Gospel, with the msot obvious example of this being at the end of Matthew: The Great Commission.
Sennet's essay about Lewis's stance on salvation just really got me thinking. I would like to believe that someone like Emeth in The Last Battle has an oppurtunity to be saved.

The Redemption of Middle Earth and the "Collision of Evil"

In reading "Tolkien and the Nature of Evil," the idea behind how the ring was destroyed intrigued me. Scott A. Davison says that the destruction of Sauron-the major evil force in The Lord of the Rings-"resulted from the apparently coincidental collision of three evil impulses: Frodo's desire to keep the Ring, Gollum's desire to take it from Frodo, and Sauron's single-minded focus on world domination, made possible by his confidence that nobody would ever try to destroy the Ring (p.107)." While the destruction of the Ring seems to be the point around which the redemption of Middle Earth centers, it does not seems as straightforward to me as the redemption of Narnia.

In Narnia, Aslan is obviously the Christ figure. He offers the sacrifice of his flesh and blood to atone for Edmund's sin, as well as the sins of Narnia. Good is used to atone for evil.

The Lord of the Rings, however, puts a twist on this redemption. While Frodo definitely had good intentions for destroying the ring, he still gave in to the lure of its power. It was only because of his evil desire to keep the ring and Gollum's evil desire to take the ring from Frodo that the Ring was destroyed. Evil was used to redeem evil.

I can't help but wonder if this could be representative for how God works at times. God's purposes and plans are secure and will be carried out regardless of the choices we make. No matter how many times we fall to temptation, God can and will bring good out of evil. He can use experiences where we have made mistakes to teach us and to teach others. Perhaps what Tolkein was trying to convey was not a direct parallel to the crucifixion and redemption from sin ( giving salvation), but redemption from sinful choices (still resulting in God's good plan).

Humans in Narnia

One thing that I have always wondered about the Chronicles of Narnia is why do humans play such a huge role in a world where humans don't seem to belong? When Aslan creates Narnia in The Magician's Nephew he doesn't create humans. Every creature in Narnia, from the talking Animals and the trees to Centaurs and Fauns, is created through Aslan's song and yet, the group that seems to be of the most importance to Narnia is brought in from somewhere else. There is no human who is truly a native Narnian, even those who are born in Narnia have ancestors that come from our world.

There are many places throughout the Chronicles that tell us just how important having humans is to Narnia, most specifically the prophecy in The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe: When Adam's flesh and Adam's bone sits at Cair Paravel in throne, the evil time will be over and done (LWW 147). It is the humans who can restore peace to Narnia. In Prince Caspian, Aslan tells Caspian that: "you could be no true King of Narnia unless...you were a son of Aam and came from the world of Adam's sons." (PC 416). It is the fact that he isn't a true Narnian that makes it possible for Caspian to be a true Narnian King. This is what I don't understand. Why is it that to truly be a King or Queen in Narnia you have to be a human from another world?

Yes, it is true that Caspian and many other Kings of Narnia were born in Narnia and had never seen the world that the human children come from. At the same time, going back into history shows that Caspian's ancestors were pirates that somehow found a door from this world into Narnia. Going further back shows that all Kings and Queens prior to the four children in The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe were descendants of King Frank and Queen Anne, the humans tha Aslan brought in to rule Narnia at the beginning of the world.

So my question is this: Is there some sort of meaning behind humans ruling Narnia? Was it just so the children could learn things that helped them deal with situations in their own world? Did Aslan have some sort of plan that needed to involve another world? or did he just forget to create a ruling class when he created Narnia? Does this have any effect on what we believe as Christians?

Another question that I had was this: Do other stories have similar themes? Thinking about Tolkien I first wondered if there was any way to compare this Narnian situation with anything that I had read by Tolkien. And then it hit me. What about Frodo? Frodo is a Hobbit. Why is it that Frodo, a Hobbit, is the one who has to destroy the ring and save Middle Earth? It isn't just because he is the one that has the ring, he doesn't really want to be the one to do it and tries to get someone else to do it for him but that isn't allowed. I think it has something to do with the fact that he is a Hobbit. Iknow that I don't have exact numbers for this but, when the rings were made there were rings given to the humans, the elves and the dwarves, but none for the hobbits. Frodo has help from people from each of these different groups, but they are not allowed to do the task for him. It has to be Frodo that destroys the ring.

Thinking this through I came up with this thought: Maybe Lewis and Tolkien are just trying to tell us that sometimes you need help from someone outside of the conflict. Maybe Frodo has to destroy the ring because he was a hobbit and was therefore not of a race that was involved in the original power struggle. And maybe the children need to come and save Narnia because the Narnians need the perspective of someone who is looking on the conflict from the ouotside. They all get drawn into the conflict eventually, but maybe that initial look with fresh eyes is all that is truly needed. Is this what these fantasy stories are telling us? or is there a more specific thing that we are supposed to get out of them? To be honest, I still don't know.

Suffering as a Source of Healing

As Puddleglum states in The Silver Chair, “[T]here are no accidents. Aslan is our guide” (Silver Chair, Chapter 10, p. 620). This made me question: is suffering a result of God making us aware of something we're doing wrong? God knows us best, so is the pain His way of telling us to change? If so, we need to be receptive to these warnings.

Our body shows pain when something’s wrong. If we don’t do anything about it, the hurt often becomes worse. We go to the doctor to relieve the pain. We may not be completely healed, but it's all part of a process. In the same way, telling someone about our emotional suffering can relieve us of some of the burden. It gives us release to our problems, and we have another mind to think through what step we should take next. When we have pain in relationships, work, or our spiritual walk, talking through this with someone can be God’s way of giving us an answer. I think God uses others to influence and direct us along our path.

Isaiah 61:3 tells us God wants to “provide for those who grieve in Zion- to bestow on them a crown of beauty instead of ashes…”. I believe God desires for us to be blessed and to live a joyful life. Suffering may come as a result of God telling us we need to change something in order to have this life. I don't think this is always the case, but it's one way I've found to think about this puzzling issue of pain and suffering.

Loss of Appeal?

Throughout reading the Narnia series and reacquainting myself with The Lord of the Rings, I am plagued by the question--Why do these stories seem to lose their magic or appeal after we interpret them as Christian stories? (Of course, this is not true for everyone.) But I overheard in class, talked with my fellow students, and read on the blog, that many feel that same as myself on this issue.
As children we were drawn into these stories and found their fantastical plots to be so intriguing (though I am sure that is not how I described them back then, I think I said something more like, "Mom, this book is so cool!"), however, now as we are "grown up" and reading these stories looking for theological/philosophical references, the stories seem to lose this appeal. We seem to be picking apart the magic that all takes place.
Again, why? Why does taking a deeper look into one of the possible intents of these stories seem to ruin the fantasy and excitement of it all? I realize that we are no longer children and the depth these stories hold was beyond our interest, or possibly capability at that point in our childhood, but to be honest, I fear that having grown up isn't the main reason for putting us off to these stories.
I honestly wonder if it is more that fact that we have lost our intrigue with the aspect of God. If we no longer find excitement and mystery found in the story of the fall, the conflict of good vs. evil, or the redemption of man. When in fact, these stories and themes found within our childhood favorites are the most mysterious and powerful of all, and should hold the most intrigue with their fantastical reality.
I, in no way, speak for everyone or even know if this is the case for me, but I search for the answer as to what it is we lose when we look deeper into the theological themes of these stories, and why it is we seem to lose that special something.

South of Paradise: Calormen

The other day in class, my group brought up the subject of racism within The Horse and His Boy. When I read this book, Calormen was painted in my mind as a land not only desolate of greenery and wetlands, but also of freedom. Shasta lives little better than if he were Arsheesh's slave than "son" and Bree's descriptions of the Tarkaan sound oddly similar to a plantation owner in the American South: "you'd be better lying dead tonight than go to be a human slave in his house tomorrow". Besides these insights, when Shasta and company are traveling through Calormen and venture within Tashbaan, we're presented with a harsh culture of social standing and dominion by the Tisroc (the whole conversation between the Tisroc, Prince Rabadash, and the Vizier is quite unsettling). Meanwhile amidst all this downplay of Calormen, there's the constant reminder of "Narnia and the North!" Narnia: a happy land of freedom absent the oppression that's continually attributed to Calormen.

Now I wonder greatly about this contrast Lewis has created, one that isn't just evident in The Horse and His Boy but seemingly all Narnia novels. First of all, why is it that the Narnians, so "fair-skinned and fair-haired" are so pure and redemptive? It's always the Calormenes who are the conquerors or invaders, the blood-thirsty and ungodly. Is Lewis creating a North vs. South complex in his books? I'm recalling the fact that Lewis was born in Ireland, a land that's had significant problems with civil strife. The conflicts between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland might've been an influence to Lewis as he was growing up and something that could've come out in his writing. Besides a reflection of worldly issues, is this contrast between Calormen and Narnia have anything to do with religion: Narnia, land of true believers; and Calormen, land of unfaithful followers of Tash. Really, the only Calormenes with redeeming qualities are Aravis, who's trying to escape Calormen; Prince Caspian, redeemed to the Narnian way; and Emeth, the only one with a faith willing to see "Tashlan" alone. These three characters could almost be seen as converts to the true faith in a way, especially Aravis and Caspian. Though they belong to Calormen at first, they experience Narnia and it changes them, much like a Saul/Paul complex.

These interpretations of the contrasts between Narnia and Calormen could simply be me over-thinking the whole concept, but I can't help questioning Lewis' reasoning. Is it as simple as a "good side, bad side" story detail, or is Lewis trying to bring out the attractiveness of a life with Christ ("Narnia and the North!") while showing how desolate and fickle our lives are without Him (Calormen and Tash)? I'd rather picture Lewis as attempting to contrast religious perspectives than having any racist motives. Then again, would I be any better if I categorized Lewis as a Narnia "pure and free"?