Integrative Essay

Mark Willard

DCM – Integrating Reason, Imagination, and Faith

Professors Ribeiro

1/24/2010

They Asked For a Paper

Throughout the past three weeks, I have learned, and have been inspired to learn, more than a whole semester could have taught me.  More importantly however, this learning process was fun.  The concepts that C. S. Lewis brought into my life, along with the Christian knowledge that Plantinga gave me, has given me a new perspective on almost every area of my life.  I did not grow up in the Reformed church, so I was glad to hear about it in Engaging God’s World.  In an attempt to prove that I have indeed understood Reformed perspective, Creation, Fall, and Redemption will be the primary foci of the paper.  Though C. S. Lewis really never wrote anything specifically about this ideology that I know of, I hope his brilliance will be displayed not only in his excerpts, but in my method of writing.

Creation

“Creation was a way for God to spend himself.  I think we’re safe in assuming God wasn’t bored.[1]”  In this passage, Plantinga hits the nail on the head.  We are not toys made for God to play with…everything God made was good.  Christians today are bombarded with opposition to the idea of creation, especially from evolutionists.  It is not to say that evolution is blasphemy, but the belief that the universe is based on random events that somehow created an environment to sustain man is running rampant.  C. S. Lewis calls this group ‘Materialists’ in The Business of Heaven.  “If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts—i.e. of materialism and astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.[2]”  Though we did not read this for class, the belief so summed up so well that the quotation had to be used.

There is a purpose for human life; more than just to live, learn, and die.  We must see the good of the world that has fallen, and use the power of Jesus Christ, mediator of creation[3], to bring about that good while we are here on earth.  It is easy to just start talking about the Fall, and forget the whole Creation part of the reformed vision, though.  For some reason, we lose sight of the fact that everything—EVERYTHING—God made is good.  Somewhere, way deep down, there is love in the heart of a serial killer.  We must try to tap into that beauty using God’s Word and not let evil, a parasite on goodness[4], blind us of out calling.

 Fall

“As matters stand, creation still declares the glory of God, but it also declares the tragedy of fallenness, of chaos, of painful carnivoruosness[5].”  The idea of the fall of man is enough for anyone to question his faith, whether it is manifested with Adam and Eve eating the apple or manifested in the act of adultery, the simple presence of sin is, in my opinion, a mystery.  To the best of my abilities, I have arrived at a suitable answer (at least for the time being) to why we are even tested with fallenness.  I believe that sin is here, corrupting us and bring about fallenness, because it provides discernment.  To provide evidence for this belief, in Meditation in a Toollshed, Lewis describes a beam of light that enters through a crack in in a dark shed.  “From where I stood that beam of light, with the specks of dust floating in it, was the most striking thing in the place. Everything else was almost pitch-black. I was seeing the beam, not seeing things by it.  Then I moved, so that the beam fell on my eyes. Instantly the whole previous picture vanished. I saw no toolshed, and (above all) no beam. Instead I saw, framed in the irregular cranny at the top of the door, green leaves moving on the branches of a tree outside and beyond that, 90 odd million miles away, the sun. Looking along the beam, and looking at the beam are very different experiences.[6]”

This is a clear demonstration of learning by experience versus learning by observation.  Although Lewis’ essay was not specifically designed to demonstrate the experience of sin, certainly it could be applicable in such a manner.  For example, I will not cheat on my wife because I have seen its effects on my own family.  On the other hand, I will not deceive my parents because I learned from the most brutal teacher of all: experience.  Had there never been sin for me to look along or look at, how could I, “Judge Angels[7]” as Paul writes?

Some might say, still, that only temptation is enough to provide discernment…that sin is not necessary.  After all, Jesus was tempted and he did not sin.  My problem with this is that, though Jesus did not sin, there was still sin to look along.  The world was still fallen, which allowed temptation to even exist.  And even if there was no sin to look along, Jesus is God, and therefore did not even need sin to understand discernment. 

There are more objections to my claim, but almost all will come down to the question, “Did God create sin?”  I know that I am going against Plantinga, as well as the CRC when I say this[8], but I believe the answer is “Yes.”  However, I do not have a problem if no one goes with me on this.  If someone wants to look at the issue as good versus evil, that is fine.  In essence that is what it is.

On a different note, we must all agree that the world has fallen into sin, and that’s not fun for us.  As Plantinga writes, though, “The good news is that God has addressed human corruption from outside the system, it is on this gracious initiative that Christian hope encounters[9].”

Redemption

            Grace.  Grace is what is offered from God if we want it.  Plantinga tells us that there is “double grace” in Christ, stating, “This lifelong conversion is called sanctification (or “becoming holier”), and regeneration is the explosion that starts its motor.  God alone regenerates, but we answer God’s calling to become sanctified people by trying to starve our old self (the one that is envious and hardhearted) and to feed our new self (the one that is grateful and compassionate) in the rhythm…[10]”  Admittedly, I did not fully understand Plantinga’s point at first.  Because of the great functionality of this class though, I asked for an explanation in one of my blogs, and sure enough, two classmates gave me help.  The point of the passage is that we constantly need filling up even after the redemption.  This is only through God’s grace, as we do not deserve forgiveness.  C. S. Lewis writes, “For mere improvement is not redemption, though redemption always improves people even here and now and will, in the end, improve them to a degree we cannot yet imagine. God became man to turn creatures into sons: not simply to produce better men of the old kind but to produce a new kind of man[11].”

            In this same manner, we must redeem the rest of the world, in addition to ourselves.  This idea is synonymous with the word vocation.  Vocation is our calling in life, and it is different for all of us.  In everyone, though, vocation is for the glory of God.  As a student at Calvin College, my goal is to find that vocation so I may go out and reform the world…in fact even before I leave this college, I must find my vocation.  The world has needs and it is our responsibility, as a citizen in the Kingdom of God, to spread Jesus’ name and prepare the way.

Conclusion

            The drama of Creation, Fall, and Redemption is the story of us: humanity.  It is a concept I had never heard of until I came to Calvin, but it essential for everyone to comprehend.  After taking DCM, I have developed a new perspective on the Reformed Church, and more importantly, I have developed a new attitude of life.  I fully respect the Reformed church, despite of my few disagreements on doctrine.  This is more of a “heart” change for me, rather than a “mindset” change.  C. S. Lewis has instilled in me the ability to think like a theologian, without actually being one, and in doing so I have learned so much.  As an example, here is part of a blog I wrote toward the end of the class:

“At the end of the conversation of Plantinga's book, I had one major conclusion.  As much as I may disagree with someone about something so minute, she is still my Sister that I should not exclude from an Inner Ring in which she might otherwise be a part of.  If I can worship the same God, pray to the same God, and earnestly seek truth alongside a man, he is my Brother.  For those who would claim that [a certain touchy subject] IS a big deal, I say that it is just as big of one for me, but in the end we do have a common ground.  We must balance the finding of truth, and the ability to practice Agape with one another.”

            So what did C. S. Lewis teach me?  Perhaps the ability to forgive, forget, and conquer the fear of being an outsider.  The class taught me to think for myself, and never, ever, tell why someone is wrong before proving that he is, indeed, actually wrong.

---

[1] Plantinga, Engaging God’s World, p.22

[2] C. S. Lewis, The Business of Heaven, p. 97

[3] Plantinga, p. 21

[4] Plantinga, p. 52

[5] Plantinga, p. 47

[6] C. S. Lewis, Meditation in a Toolshed, p. 1

[7] 1 Corinthians 6:3

[8] The Belgic Confession, Article 13

[9] Plantinga, p. 69

[10] Plantinga, p. 90

[11] C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, Book 4, Chapter 10  

The Problem of Pain

In The Problem of Pain, C. S. Lewis tackles something that is really beyond our understanding.  After reading the chapter assigned, I came to the conclusion that I didn't really learn anything.  This is not, in and of itself, a bad thing.  In fact, I suppose I did hear Lewis's opinion on it.  However, I believe that just about everything he says in this paper is fact, rather than predicated on belief.

It does not matter how old you are, that someday you will wonder why pain is even on this earth.  Or for instance, why there is even sin.  I am not writing to provide the answers, I am only writing to refute acclaimed answers.  For example, it is a written belief by one certain sect of Christianity that "God was not the author of Sin."  This statement, in my mind, makes no sense.  It does't matter how many sentences follow this to make the belief sound better (for example, "God allows sin to go on by the work of the Devil..."), because at the end of the day, God did not create everything on this earth.  For that matter, he did not create pain.  I do not agree with that statement, of course, I am merely displaying an obvious predicament to the belief.  Lewis writes that God speaks softly to us in pleasure, but yells with a megaphone at us when we are in pain.  We must understand that pain is a tool that God has, that is actually a very effective tool.

In a previous blog, I have written about the instance in which "God hardened Pharaoh's heart."  I believe that this can be represented with The Problem of Pain.  It is an easy comparison...why would God (specifically God, not Satan) make him not let the Israelites go.  At the same token, why is my friends mother dying of cancer?  Why is the adulterous husband not repenting of his destruction?  Many people simply say that these scenarios just simply do not parallel the one in the Bible, for, if they did, then that might imply that God is working against us.  Once again, I must state that I do not believe this but am merely displaying a belief (I have been known to confuse readers).  My point is, why wouldn't God let the Israelites go right off the bat?  Surely he had the power to do so.  Now, the obvious answer is to say that he did it to display his power and glory, which I will not argue.  But, what about the man who goes to his grave never professing Jesus Christ as his savior?  Where is God's power now?  God never "softened" the adulterer's heart...why not?

I am not going to answer the question that we have all wondered at one time or another, but I will provide my belief.  I believe that God will use the adulterer to display his Glory in the next life.  For eventually "Every knee will bow, and every tongue confess..."  And, if you can bear with me (it is beyond my understanding), God's glory is GREATER because of sin.

Plantinga Chapter 5

Today in class when my group discussed this chapter that is centered around Vocation, There was interesting discussion.  One member of my group is PRC, of which he claims does not believe in the whole 'vocation' thing (if I understood correctly).  I am neither PRC nor CRC, so I did not feel educated enough to comment.

Essentially, our conversation was dominated by discussion on predestination.  I guess that this was derived from the disagreement about vocation...that, if God is going to redeem the world, there isn't a reason to, as Plantinga puts it, reform the secular institutions.  As I said before, I have no dog in this fight.  However, I did respond with several questions predicated on this belief, including, "Well for that matter, what is the point in spreading the gospel if all will be redeemed by Jesus' second coming?"  Obviously, it didn't take long for the conversation to end with predestination (just follow the train of thought...get it?).  Anyway, in the discussion about the "p" word, as I'll call it, the response was that of a passage in Romans; that God uses the Word to call out those who are predestined.  One would think that this would answer the question, but I am not he.  "So," I said, "If God tells me to tell someone about Jesus, and I ignore it because it would be embarrassing, does that someone lose an opportunity in eternity?"  The answer was a quick, "no" because that person was obviously not predestined.

As you can see (or at least as I see it), it is a circular argument when talking about the "p" word.  That being said, to say I have no belief bu t only 'stupid questions' would be a lie.  I do believe that God knows all, as he is omnipotent.  He knows the fate of every man.  I also believe that we can not simply write some situation off as a matter of someone being predestined or not predestined.  We know nothing,so we must not make it an issue.

At the end of the conversation of Plantinga's book, I had one major conclusion.  As much as I may disagree with someone about something so minute, she is still my Sister that I should not exclude from an Inner Ring in which she might otherwise be a part of.  If I can worship the same God, pray to the same God, and earnestly seek truth alongside a man, he is my Brother.  For those who would claim that the "p" word IS a big deal, I say that it is just as big of one for me, but in the end we do have a common ground.  We must balance the finding of truth, and the ability to practice Agape with one another.

Man or Rabbit?

Another straightforward, thought-provoking essay by C. S. Lewis in which he, once again, makes me question my own intelligence.  I have thought, and even asked the question that he addresses in the essay: CAN'T YOU LEAD A GOOD LIFE WITHOUT BELIEVING IN CHRISTIANITY?  Unfortunately, I am not smart enough to write my feelings on the matter like he does, but I can say that I have answered the question in the same matter aloud...at least with the same emphases.  As Lewis eventually says, "The question before each of us is not 'Can someone lead a good life without Christianity?' The question is, 'Can I?...He is really asking, 'Need I bother about it? Mayn't I just evade the issue, just let sleeping dogs lie, and get on with being "good"? Aren't good intentions enough to keep me safe and blameless without knocking at that dreadful door and making sure whether there is, or isn't someone inside?'"

Lewis's point here is that the person asking this question, in reality, is more than likely interested in the makings of what might be, to him, God.  He is searching, and Christianity has aroused his mind.  Therefore, the answer to the question, as Lewis reluctantly says, is "Yes."  I say reluctantly because of course it is good for people to know God, and this fact trumps all objections that exert "no" for the answer.  The reason Lewis says it as if he is backed into a corner is that, for the person asking, the timing is a little off.  What I mean is, it would not be good for the man to 'become a Christian' so he could be say all the chants and learn the religion and have no actual heart.  We know that not everyone who goes to church really lives for God (I guess some could argue).  For the most part, the man who is drunk six out of seven days of the week and goes to church isn't necessarily 'living for God.'  Therefore, in the sense that the man asking the question is only looking at religion, the answer is no (I am not merely speaking in a literal sense).  The reason one could not respond "no" in this scenario is because the man would not be a Christian if he 'said the words' for the wrong reason.  Therefore the question of, "Is it good for me to be a Christian?" could only have an answer of 'yes.'

C. S. Lewis writes this in a way that assumes something of the asker, but I believe he is allowed to do this.  The only way someone else would seriously consider this question is a theologian, a good thinker, or a great thinker (a.k.a. C. S. Lewis).  Anyway, toodles...

The Inner Ring

In The Inner Ring, C. S. Lewis displays, not necessarily a huge problem, but a huge commonality in society.  The essay shows how social circles, begin, operate, and flaw.  In my opinion, this has been the easiest  of his essays to read, and it has been the most straightforward.  Essentially, Lewis claimed that social circles are not bad in and of themselves, but when they are formed for the wrong reasons they are unfruitful.  Gangs are possibly the most notable of "Inner Ring" failures, but there even spoiled inner rings in respectable society.  Lewis says that it all depends on how and why the group was formed.  If it was formed in order to leave out other people, and members get joy from that, then the inner ring is very bad.


The only case in which Lewis says that an Inner Ring is good, occurs when a scenario is what causes the group to form.  A common interest from all who are involved.  It is for the love of the substance, rather than inclusion of a group.  Perhaps, Lewis says, a quartet is to be formed.  Of course there can only be four individuals.  Though others will be left out, it is for the good of the quartet, and exclusion was only enforced because of circumstances.  We must not confuse this type of exclusion with "unrighteous" exclusion.

The Four Loves: Eros

Lewis's chapter on Eros is an attempt to define Eros, explain it, and apply it to our marriages and other relationships.  With this attempt he completely succeeds and leaves me with quotes that I will know forever.

"By Eros I mean of course that state which we call "being in love"..."  From the first sentence, Lewis lays a solid basis that will allow the chapter to flow smoothly and allow no gaps in thinking.  In fact several times while reading this I had to go back and figure out what Eros actually was.  Whether this is simply my ineptness or a fault of Lewis, I was still able to simply go back and be reminded of his terminology.  Now about the substance of this definition (and what he adds to it later), I adore it.  Essentially, Lewis claims that we can all "fall in love," at one time or another in our lives, but to "be in love" is an entirely new battlefield.  Lewis claims that Eros says, "It is better to be unhappy with her than to be happy with another."  In Lewis's analogy of 'diving into the pond,' "being in love" is when you keep swimming, even after the fun part (diving).  There are those that are obsessed with "falling in love," so they never learn "true love" (Eros).

I must now touch on submission.  We talked about it so much in class that I need to address it (Plus I was the one who said that the ideal woman should be submissive).  I will start by saying that whole thing about "wives submit to your husbands..." has, for some reason, put a bad taste in most Christians today (including males).  This is a problem!  I would like to say that the word has changed definitions due to change in culture, but this is simply not true.  It is simply ignorance.  I will say, though, that I was glad to hear laughter after I said the word, rather than raging disagreement.  I have looked at submission on several different angles, and have decided that I should explain.  When I say that the ideal woman should be submissive, this does assume that the man loves his wife as Christ loved the church.  If the response to this assumption is, "Well you didn't say THAT!" then we can go nowhere.  We were talking about ideals, therefore I assumed that the situation would be ideal (i. e. the man loves the wife, in-turn).  C. S. Lewis sums this up when he says, "This headship, then, is most fully embodied not in the husband we should all wish to be but in him whose marriage is most like a crucifixion; whose wife receives most and gives least, is most unworthy of him., is in her own mere nature least lovable....... So, in these terrible marriages, once they have come about, the "headship" of the husband, if only he can sustain it, is most Christ-like."

Now to respond to the lazy, unloving husband scenario.  I totally agree with Professor Ribiero that a woman should make decisions if the man is not loving her and doing his job.  When the father tells his wife that he doesn't give a dang about what his kids do or don't do, she should step in and take control.  This, however, does not disprove submission.  Clearly the wife has been patient with the husband, and has done nothing to keep her from doing anything, therefore she is still in submission.  One might say, "Well, what if the husband tells the wife that she can have no rules for her children? What then should she do?"  To this I say that this is indeed a terrible scenario in which the solution requires submission.  Not submission entirely, but to some extent.  It does not disprove the ideal quality that a woman should be submissive.

Lewis further agrees with my statements when he says, "The real danger is not that husbands may grasp the latter too eagerly; but that they will allow or compel their wives to usurp it."  A man must look for qualities in a woman that, when he is weak, she may support him and long for him to support her.  Pride is important to man, just as affection is important to women.  Submission and Loving are the two actions that provide these feelings, and we must both do this, man and wife, if Eros is to be good to us.

Plantinga Chapter 4

In Chapter 4: "Redemption," Plantinga helps me learn some of the stuff we learned in Prelude.  I'm not CRC, so all of this is new toe me, but I'm getting a better grasp of the system.  I had never before heard of the Catechisms (at least outside of Catholicism and Lutheranism) or even the Creeds.  My interests are quite peaked, but I am not at all ashamed of not knowing the Creeds or specific doctrines.  In fact, I am quite proud that the only thing that has really influenced my thinking up to this point has been the Bible and my dad.  Obviously there are other minor things, but primarily these are my sources.  I am definitely open to learning CRC history, and simply Christian history, but ideas provided in creeds are merely food for thought, not law.  So if I sound stupid with terminology, it's because I am.

When Plantinga talks about double grace, I am slightly confused but I think I get the point of it.  Essentially, when we accept God we are free from the bondage of sin, and free to do God's will.  I have heard this sermon a few times, that many people refuse Christianity because it "ties you down," when in fact we are free.  As far as three effects of the double grace, though, I have no idea what he's talking about.  He says regeneration, justification, and sanctification, are real events with real effects.  I still have no idea what he's talking about.  Can someone please explain when I've had this in my life?  He really leaves me hangin' here...